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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

[Image: Spine]

History For Ready Reference, Volume 3 of 6

From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History

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

BY J. N. LARNED

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

In Five Volumes

Volume III—Greece To Nibelungen Lied


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

MDCCCXCV

Copyright, 1894.
By J. N. Larned.

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


List Of Maps.

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

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

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

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

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


Logical Outline, In Colors.

Irish History, To follow page 1754


Chronological Tables.

The Seventh Century, On page 2073

The Eighth Century, On page 2074



{1565}

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

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

GREECE:
   The Land.

   Its geographical characteristics, and their influence upon the
   People.

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

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

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

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

GREECE: Ancient inhabitants.
   Tribal divisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

GREECE:
   Mycenæ and its kings.
   The unburied memorials.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Schliemann,
      Mycenæ._

      _C. Schuchhardt,
      Schliemann's Excavations,
      chapter 4._

GREECE:
   Ancient political and geographical divisions.

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

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

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

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 1._

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

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

      See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

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

{1571}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      book 6._

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

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

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Greeks and Persians,
      chapter 6._

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

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

      SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Herodotus,
      History
      (translated by Rawlinson), book 7._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Herodotus,
      History
      (translated by Rawlinson), book 9._

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

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

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

{1575}

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

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

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

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

      _Herodotus,
      History
      (translated by Rawlinson),
      book 9._

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

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

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

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

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Cimon; Pericles._

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

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

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

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

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

{1579}

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

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

      _T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 1._

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 3, book 4._

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Early History of Greece
     (Enc. Metropolitana),
      page 283._

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Thucydides,
      History,
      books 1-2._

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Abbott,
      Pericles,
      chapters 13-15._

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

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

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

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

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

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      books 2-3._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{1585}

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 4, sections 2-38._

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 52._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Alcibiades._

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

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

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 56._

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

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

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

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{1588}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 8, chapters 4-51._

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

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

      _W. Smith,
      Smaller History of Greece,
      chapter 13. _

{1590}

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

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

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

      _Plutarch,
      Alcibiades._

      _Xenophon,
      Hellenica,
      book 1, chapters 1-4._

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

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

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

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 64._

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

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

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

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

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Athenian Empire,
      chapter 7._

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

      _Plutarch,
      Lysander._

      _Xenophon,
      Hellenica,
      book 2, chapter 1._

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon,
      Hellenica,
      book 5, chapter 2._

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

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

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

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 76._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See THEBES: B. C. 378.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Pelopidas_.

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

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

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

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

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

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

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

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

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78._

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

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

      _C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon,
      Hellenica,
      books 5-6._

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 2._

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

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

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

      _W. Smith,
      Smaller History of Greece,
      chapter 19._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Alexander,
      chapters 14-17._

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

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

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

      _T. Keightley,
      History of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 5._

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

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

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

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

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

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

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

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

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

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

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

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

      See, also,
      HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Polybius,
      History._

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

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

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

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

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

      _Polybius,
      General History._

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

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

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

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

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

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

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 1._

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

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

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

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

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

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

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

      See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

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

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Greek World under Roman Sway._

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

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

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

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

      See GOTHS.

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

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

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

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

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

      See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

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

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

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

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

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

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

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

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

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

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

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

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

      _T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
      chapter 3._

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

      _S. G. Howe,
      Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution._

      _T. Gordon,
      History of the Greek Revolution._

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

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

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

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

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

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

      _L. Sergeant,
      Greece,
      chapter 5._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _D. Bikelas,
      Seven Essays on Christian Greece,
      essay 6._

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

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

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

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

GREEK, Origin of the name.

      See HELLAS.

GREEK CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.

GREEK EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

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

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

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

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

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

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

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

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

GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

      See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

GREEK FIRE.

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

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

GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

      See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

GREELEY, Horace,
   The Peace Conference at Niagara.

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

   Presidential candidacy and defeat.

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

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

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

GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

GREENBACK PARTY, The.

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

GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

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

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

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

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

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

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

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

{1613}

GREENS, Roman Faction of the.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

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

GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

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

GRENVILLE MINISTRY, The.

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

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

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

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

GREY FRIARS.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

GREY LEAGUES, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

      See BIGI.

GRIERSON'S RAID.

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

GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

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

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

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

GRISONS, The.
   Achievement of democratic independence.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

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

GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

GROL, Capture of (1627).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

GROS VENTRE INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

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

GROSS GÖRSCHEN, OR LUTZEN, Battle of.

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

GROSSE RATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

GROSSWARDEIN, Treaty of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GROVETON, Battle of.

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

GRUTHUNGI, The.

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

GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GUADALETE, Battle of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GUADALOUPE HIDALGO, Treaty of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

GUADALUPES.

      See GACHUPINES.

GUAICARUS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUAJIRA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

GUANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUANCHES, The.

      See LIBYANS.

GUARANI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

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

GUATEMALA:
   The name.

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

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

GUATEMALA:
   Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

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

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

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

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

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

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

GUAYANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{1614}

GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

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

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

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

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

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

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

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

GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover._

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

      _P. M. Thornton,
      The Brunswick Accession,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Browning,
      Guelfs and Ghibellines._

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

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

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

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

GUÉLFS. White and Black (Bianchi and Neri).

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

GUELPHS OF HANOVER, The Order of the.

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

      _C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 3._

GUERANDE. Treaty of.

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

GUERNSEY, The Isle of.

      See JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.

GUERRA DOS CABANOS.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

GUERRILLAS.

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

GUEUX OF THE NETHERLAND REVOLT.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

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

GUIANA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

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

      See EL DORADO.

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

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Dalton,
      History of British Guiana._

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

GUIENNE, OR GUYENNE.

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

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

GUILDS, OR GILDS, Mediæval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _W. Herbert,
      History of Twelve Great Livery Companies._

      See, also, COMMUNE.

GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

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

      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip Van Arteveld,
      part 1, chapter 1._

GUILDS OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

GUILFORD COURT HOUSE, Battle of (1781).

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

GUILLOTINE, The origin of the.

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

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Life of Robespierre,
      chapter 10._

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

      _J. W. Croker,
      History of the Guillotine._

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

GUINEGATE, Battle of (1478).

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

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 17._

GUINEGATE: Battle of (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

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

GUINES, Treaty of (1547).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

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

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

GUISE, Duke of, Assassination.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

GUISES, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

GUIZOT'S MINISTRY.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

GUJERAT, Battle of (1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

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

{1619}

GUNPOWDER PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GURKHAS, OR GOORKAS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

GURU, OR GOOROO.

      See SIKHS.

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

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

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

   Campaigns and death in Germany.

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

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

   Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1792-1809.

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

GUTENBERG, and the invention of Printing.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

GUTSTADT, Battle of.

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

GUTHRIE, The founding of the city of.

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

GUTTONES, The.

      See PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

GUUCHIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUY FAWKES' DAY.

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GWENT.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GWLEDIG.

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

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, ARTHUR, KING.

GWYNEDD.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GYLIPPUS, and the defense of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

GYMNASIA, German.

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

GYMNASIA, Greek.

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

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

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

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 2, chapter 5._

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

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 2._

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

{1620}

GYMNASIARCH.

      See LITURGIES.

GYPSIES, The.

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

      _G. Borrow,
      The Zincali,
      volume 1, pages 2-5._

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

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

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

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

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

      _The Athenæum,
      March 31, 1894._

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

      _W. Simson.
      History of the Gipsies._

GYRWAS.

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

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 2._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{1622}

H

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

HABEAS CORPUS, Act and Writ of.

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

HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, Origin of the House of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

HABSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

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

HACKINSACKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

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

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

HADRIANOPLE.

      See ADRIANOPLE.

HADRIAN'S MAUSOLEUM.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

HADRUMETUM, OR ADRUMETUM.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

HÆDUI, The.

      See ÆDUI.

HÆMUS, Mount.

   The ancient name of the Balkan chain of mountains.

HÆRRED, The.

      See HUNDRED, THE.

HAGENAU, Treaty of (1330).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HAGUE, The:
   Origin and Name.

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

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

HAGUENAU: Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

HAIDAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

HAIDERABAD, OR HYDERABAD, The Nizam of.

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

HAINAULT.

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

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 922-1345.

HAITI.

      See HAYTI.

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

HALF-BREEDS.

      See STALWARTS.

HALFWAY COVENANT, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

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

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

HALICARNASSUS.

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

HALIDON HILL, Battle of (1333).

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

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

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

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

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

HALIFAX CURRENCY.

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

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      page 433._

HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.

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

HALLECK, General Henry W. Command in Missouri.

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

   Command in the Valley of the Mississippi.

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

   Command of all the armies.

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

HAMADAN.

   The capital city of ancient Media.

HAMATH, Kingdom of.

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

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

{1623}

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

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

      See HANSA TOWNS.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

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

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

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

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

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

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

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

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

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

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

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

HAMILCAR BARCA, and the First Punic War.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   The Federal Party.

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

HAMILTON, Alexander:
   Fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

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

HAMITES.—HAMITIC LANGUAGES.

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

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

HAMPDEN, John.

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

HAMPDEN CLUBS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONFERENCE.

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

HANAU, Battle of.

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

HANCOCK, John, and the American Revolution.

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

HANDVESTS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.

HANES.

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

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 3._

HANNIBAL, The war of, with Rome.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

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

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

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

HANOVER:
   The Guelf connection.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;
      and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

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

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

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

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

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

{1624}

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

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

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

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

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

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

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

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

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

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

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

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

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

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 23._

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

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

HANOVER, The Alliance of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

HANOVER JUNCTION, Engagement at.

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

HANSA TOWNS, The.

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

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

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

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

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

      _J. Yeats,
      The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce._

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

HANSE OF LONDON, The Flemish.

      See FLANDERS: 13TH CENTURY.

HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

HAOMA.

      See SOMA.

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

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

{1627}

HAPSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

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

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

   Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.

   Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.

   Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.

   Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.

   Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.

HARAN.

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

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

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

HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.

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

HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

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

HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

HARFLEUR.
   Capture by Henry V.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

HARGREAVE'S SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

HARII, OR ARII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

HARLAW, Battle of (1411).

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

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 17._

HARLEM.

      See HAARLEM.

HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

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

HARMOSTS.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HARRISON, General Benjamin,
   Presidential election and administration.

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

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

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

   In the War of 1812.

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

   Presidency for one month.
   Death.

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

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

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

HARROW SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-ENGLAND.

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

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

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

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

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

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

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

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

HARTFORD CONVENTION, The.

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

HARTHACNUT.

      See HARDICANUTE.

HARUSPICES, The.

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

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

HARVARD ANNEX.

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

HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

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

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

HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.

HASSIDIN, The.

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

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

HASTATI.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

HASTENBACK, Battle of.

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

{1628}

HASTING, The Northman.

      See Normans: A. D. 849-860.

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

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

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

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

HASTINGS, OR SENLAC, Battle of.

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

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

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

HATRA.

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

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 22._

HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.

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

HATTERAS EXPEDITION, The.

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

HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.

      See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

HAVANA.

      See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.

HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

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

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, The.

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

      _Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,
      chapter 24._

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

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

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

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

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

      _W. D. Alexander,
      Brief History of the Hawaiian People._

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

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

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

HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

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

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

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

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

HAYNE AND WEBSTER DEBATE, The.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      _C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies,
      chapter 13._

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

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martineau,
      The Hour and the Man._

      _J. Brown,
      History of St. Domingo._

      _H. Adams,
      Historical Essays,
      chapter 4._

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

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

{1633}

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

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

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 15._

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

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

HEAD-CENTER, Fenian.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

HEARTS OF OAK BOYS.
HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.

HEAVENFIELD.
   Battle of the (635).

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

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 275._

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

HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

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

HEBREW, The Name.

      See JEWS: THEIR NATIONAL NAMES.

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

HEBRIDES OR WESTERN ISLANDS, The.

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

      _Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      volume 3, page 60._

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

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

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

      See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.

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

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

      _Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,
      pages 65-72._

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

HEBRON.

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

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 3, A._

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

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

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

HECANA, Kingdom of.

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

      _N. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 70._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HECATOMB

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

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

HECATOMBÆON, Battle of.

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

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62._

{1635}

HECATOMPEDON, The.

      See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

HECATOMPYLOS.

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

HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

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

HEELERS.

      See BOSSISM.

HEERBAN, The.

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

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

HEGEMONY.

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

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

HEGIRA, The.

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

HEGIRA, Era of the.

      See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

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

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

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

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

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

HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

HEILBRONN, Union of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

HELAM, OR HALAMAH, Battle of.

   A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.

      _II. Samuel,
      x. 15-19._

HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.

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

HELEPOLIS, The.

      See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

HELIÆA, The.

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

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

HELICON.

      See THESSALY.

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

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

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

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

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

HELIOPOLIS.

      See ON.

HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.

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

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

HELLAS.
HELLENES.
GRAIKOI.
GREEKS.

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

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 1._

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

{1636}

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

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

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Juventus Mundi,
      chapter 4._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
   Hellenism and the Jews.

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

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

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:
   Hellenism and the Romans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HELLENION, The.

      See NAUKRATIS.

HELLESPONT, The.

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

HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

HELLULAND.

      See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

HELOTS.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

HELVECONES, The.

      See LYGIANS.

{1642}

HELVETIAN REPUBLIC, The.

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

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

HELVETIC REPUBLIC OF 1798, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.

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

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

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      chapters 1-29._

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

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

HELVII, The.

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

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

HENGESTESDUN, Battle of.

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

HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HENOTICON OF ZENO, The.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

HENRICIANS.

      See PETROBRUSIANS.

HENRY,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.

   Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.

   Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.

   Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.

   Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.

   Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

   Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

   Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.

      See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

   Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.

   Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.

   Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.

   Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks
   (Germany), 919-936.

   Henry II.,
   Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;
   King of Italy, 1004-1024.

   Henry II. (of Trastamare),
   King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.

   Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),
   King of England, 1154-1189.

   Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.

   Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,
   and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.

   Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.

   Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.

   Henry III.,
   King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;
   King of Poland, 1573-1574.

   Henry IV.,
   Emperor, 1077-1106;
   King of Germany, 1056-1106.

   Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.

   Henry IV., King of England
   (first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.

   Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre
   (the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.
   Abjuration.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

   Assassination.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

   Henry V.,
   Emperor, 1112-1125;
   King of Germany, 1106-1125.

   Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.

   Henry VI.,
   King of Germany, 1190-1197;
   Emperor, 1191-1197;
   King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

   Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.

   Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),
   King of Germany, 1308-1313;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

   Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.

   Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.

HENRY, Patrick,
   The Parson's cause.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

{1643}

HENRY, Patrick:
   The American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
      RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER),
      1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;
      also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

HENRY, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

HEPTANOMIS, The.

   The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven
   provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.

      See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.

HERACLEA.
   The earliest capital of the Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

HERACLEA PONTICA,
   Siege of.

   Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian
   coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other
   towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the
   Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered
   through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the
   ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The
   Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for
   appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous
   statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

HERACLEIDÆ, OR HERAKLEIDS, The.

   Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the
   demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.
   "Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear
   his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his
   descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês
   is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their
   principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the
   Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which
   at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of
   all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even
   to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek
   character, was the expedition of the Dorians into
   Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is
   'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of
   the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the
   Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of
   Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But
   through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency
   and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless
   he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his
   claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards
   made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having
   also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his
   descendants were always entitled to the possession of
   one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was
   therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were
   made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as
   reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in
   former times."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.

   The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the
   Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is
   represented as ending with Candaules.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17._

HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.

HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.

   ----------HERAT: Start--------

HERAT: B. C. 330.
   Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

HERAT: A. D. 1221.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

   ----------HERAT: End--------

HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

HERCULANEUM.

      See POMPEII.

HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

HERCYNIAN FOREST, The.

   "The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and
   some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this
   forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey
   to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the
   territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the
   straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the
   Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different
   directions from the river, and extended to the territory of
   many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he
   had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a
   journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did
   terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.
   … The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the
   Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we
   assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the
   Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would
   correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on
   the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle
   nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern
   parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the
   Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still
   farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named
   Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is
   this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated
   the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it
   is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,
   Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which
   separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder
   and the Vistula."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

HERETOGA.

      See EALDORMAN.

HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

HERIBANN.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

{1644}

HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.

   The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of
   Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old
   treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships
   must not go.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 5._

HERMANDAD, The.

   See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

HERMANRIC, OR ERMANARIC, The empire of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.

HERMANSTADT,
   Battle of (1442).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

   (Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).

HERMINSAULE, The.

      See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.

HERMIONES, The.

      See GERMANY: As KNOWN TO TACITUS.

HERMITS.

      See ANCHORITES.

HERMONTHIS.

      See ON.

HERMUNDURI, The.

   Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people
   loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade
   not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in
   the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.
   Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while
   to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to
   them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which
   they do not covet."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany._

   "The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,
   and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far
   as Bohemia and Saxony."

      _Tacitus,
      Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:
      The Germany.
      Geography notes._

HERNICANS, The.

   A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower
   Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were
   leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians
   and the Æquians.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 6._

HERODEANS, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
      REIGN OF THE HERODEANS.

HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.

      See GREECE: THE HEROES.

HEROÖPOLIS.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).

   In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground
   in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten
   provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from
   Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir
   John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the
   convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the
   best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English
   entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the
   attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French
   chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered
   thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named
   the Battle of the Herrings.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      2d series, chapter 35._

HERRNHUT.

      See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

HERULI, The.

   The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in
   their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great
   piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which
   struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The
   Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After
   the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found
   occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the
   Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules
   were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman
   army in the last days of the empire.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.
   Revolt against Turkish rule.
   Interposition of the Powers.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1878.
   Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

   ----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------

HESSE: A. D. 1866.
   Extinction of the electorate.
   Absorption by Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

HESSIANS, The, in the American War.

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

HESTIASIS.

   The feasting of the tribes at Athens.

      See LITURGIES.

HESYCHASTS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

HETÆRIES, Ancient.

   Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;
   associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy
   citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly
   pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of
   political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or
   defence of official men after the period of office had
   expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.
   … They furnished, when taken together, a formidable
   anti-popular force."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

HETAIRA.
HETAIRISTS, Modern.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

HETMAN.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
      also, COSSACKS.

HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

HEYDUCS.

   Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish
   domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and
   robbers were called Heyducs.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 3._

HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.

      See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HIBERNIA.

      See IRELAND.

HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

HIDALGO.

   "Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later
   applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more
   particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted
   showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman
   colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from
   imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called
   'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 252, foot-note._

HIDATSA INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA.

{1645}

HIDE OF LAND.
CARUCATE.
VIRGATE.

   "In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series
   of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice
   of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the
   number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show
   clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a
   virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)
   That the hide did not always contain the same number of
   virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in
   Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.
   … We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred
   Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as
   a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really
   important consequence resulting from this is the recognition
   of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many
   scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it
   consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a
   bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in
   the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason
   of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate
   is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost
   everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of
   hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a
   manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and
   expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough
   or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for
   both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate
   seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but
   other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is
   the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,
   therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the
   soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In
   pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may
   possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a
   hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of
   such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the
   'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;
   but the fact of the connexion is clear."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 2, section 4,
      and chapter 10, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, MANORS.

HIERATIC WRITING.

      See HIEROGLYPHICS.

HIERODULI, The.

   In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or
   ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to
   certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of
   some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on
   the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as
   an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at
   Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more
   than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,
   who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.
   In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,
   whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of
   Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may
   consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.
   They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said
   to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and
   dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are
   told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,
   whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too
   there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of
   whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax
   from their earnings to the goddess."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 4._

      See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Egyptian.

   "The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred
   Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed
   entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very
   inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,
   and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot
   now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a
   long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for
   which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a
   hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last
   succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a
   prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean
   François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d
   of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,
   1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in
   the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a
   solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous
   scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would
   … be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as
   always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are
   symbolical characters among them, generally easy to
   understand; as also there are, and in very great number,
   figurative characters directly representing the object to be
   designated; but the majority of the signs found in every
   hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,
   representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to
   offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an
   only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also
   pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian
   name commenced with the letter in question, while also the
   syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects
   designated by that syllable."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians
   was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they
   first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still
   lived in their original home. We, however, know of no
   inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for
   the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain
   alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of
   writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …
   Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon
   temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies
   of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest
   hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the
   monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the
   Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates
   from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for
   writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes
   until the third century after Christ, at least.
{1646}
   Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the
   priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during
   the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in
   hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic
   is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of
   Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a
   thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably
   inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were
   written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a
   comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies
   of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the
   fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely
   conventional modification of hieratic characters, which
   preserve little of their original form, and was used for
   social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian
   decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing
   appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived
   until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of
   the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by
   side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,
   and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the
   ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.
   247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king
   had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,
   set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy
   V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the
   benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.
   … A century or two after the Christian era Greek had
   obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the
   native Christian population, the disciples and followers of
   Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write
   down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the
   books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six
   signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to
   express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

      _E. A. Wallis Budge,
      The Mummy,
      pages 353-354._

      See, also, ROSETTA STONE.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

HIERONYMITES, The.

   "A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,
   Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and
   called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had
   compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or
   because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken
   St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by
   Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of
   Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its
   wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,
   where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,
   attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

HIGH CHURCH AND LOW CHURCH:
   First use of the names.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

      See CURIA REGIS.

HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

HIGH MIGHTINESSES, Their.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE, The.

   William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United
   States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of
   California into the Union as a Free State, used the following
   language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our
   stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to
   justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is
   a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our
   authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble
   purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of
   the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the
   Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so
   discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable
   degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator
   of the United States that the laws of the Creator were
   'higher' than those of human enactment excited much
   astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress
   and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, pages 262-263._

   In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the
   Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures
   attending the admission of California, this Higher Law
   Doctrine was much talked about.

HIGHLAND CLANS.

      See CLANS.

HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND,

      See SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

HIKENILDE—STRETE.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      and CANOSSA.

HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.

HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.

HILTON HEAD, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

HIMATION, The.

   An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men
   and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that
   the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so
   as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the
   back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to
   cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to
   the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained
   uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the
   left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A
   second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm
   free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in
   pictures."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 42._

   ----------HIMERA: Start--------

HIMERA, Battle of.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

HIMERA:
   Destroyed by Hannibal.

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   ----------HIMERA: End--------

HIMYARITES, The.

      See ARABIA.

HIN, The.

      See EPHAH.

HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

{1647}

HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.

      See CAUCASUS, THE INDIAN.

HINDUISM.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

HINDUSTAN.

      See INDIA: THE NAME.

HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

HIONG-NU, The.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

HIPPARCH.

   A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the
   ancient Athenians.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

HIPPEIS.

   Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,
   was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred
   young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not
   reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called
   Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as
   hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in
   which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term
   Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes
   into which Solon divided the population,—their property
   obliging them to serve as cavalry.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece, The State,
      part 3, chapters 1 and 3._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

HIPPIS, Battle of the,

   Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between
   the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the
   other. The latter were the victors.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

   ----------HIPPO: Start--------

HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.

   An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.

      See NUMIDIANS; and CARTHAGE: DOMINION OF.

HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.
   Siege by the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

   ----------HIPPO: End--------

HIPPOBOTÆ, The.

   See EUBŒA.

HIPPODROME.
STADION.
THEATER.

   "The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at
   the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took
   place were modified according to their varieties. The races
   both on horseback and in chariots took place in the
   hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served
   the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical
   and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans
      (translated by Hueffer),
      sections 28-30._

HIPPOTOXOTÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

HIRA.

   "The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of
   the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or
   affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans
   and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was
   allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira
   were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward
   of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy
   and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith
   inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to
   excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the
   familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to
   despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50 (volume 5)._

   "The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced
   Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the
   desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed
   was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the
   6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as
   an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

      _Sir William Muir,
      Life of Mahomet,
      introduction, chapter 1._

   In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the
   greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;
      also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

HISPALIS.

   The name of Seville under the Romans.

      See SEVILLE.

HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

HISPANIOLA.

   The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between
   the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;
      and HAYTI.

HISSARLIK.

   The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the
   excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      also, TROJA, and HOMER.

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------

HISTORY:
   Definitions.

   "With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all
   modern languages, signifies either a form of literary
   composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such
   composition—either a narrative of events, or events which
   may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this
   doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,
   to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,
   with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so
   related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two
   things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word
   history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot
   have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a
   form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when
   either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd
   that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done
   were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule
   rather than the exception. The majority of so-called
   definitions of history are definitions only of the records of
   history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not
   to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although
   given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not
   apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.
   They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they
   cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of
   history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this
   latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of
   history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant
   history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as
   a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,
   'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the
   exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des
   Geschehenen).
{1648}
   The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and
   explicit indication of what history as effectuated or
   transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It
   is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has
   happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is
   history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things
   or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and
   comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as
   distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a
   neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the
   English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das
   Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander
   des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we
   have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the
   name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human
   history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency
   and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which
   have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have
   been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word
   history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse
   than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and
   pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on
   certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may
   perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary
   of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses
   dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth
   remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species.
   According to such definitions history consists of exceptional
   things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and
   actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements
   in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and
   literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of
   history. History is made up of what is little as well as of
   what is great, of what is common as well as of what is
   strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted
   noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography
   of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether
   undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all
   history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a
   certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,
   however, that biography is a more general notion than history,
   and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not
   only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the
   history of an individual as to say that history is the
   biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography
   in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical
   sense, not the word history in the former case. … According
   to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are
   present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any
   logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying
   that politics and history are the same, and may both be
   divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what
   either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is
   not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that
   something may be called either this or that. Besides, the
   identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been
   already indicated, on a view of history which is at once
   narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that
   mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are
   present history, as that political history is past politics
   and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past
   was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is
   nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 5-10._

HISTORY:
   The subjects and objects of History.

   "The position for which I have always striven is this, that
   history is past politics, that politics are present history.
   The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the
   name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of
   an organized society, governed according to law. History, in
   any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I
   am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the
   merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is
   necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits
   of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the
   pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.
   Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and
   special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or
   manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are
   constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The
   collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are
   materials for history, materials of which the historian makes
   grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to
   in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no
   kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the
   historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his
   subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,
   sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all
   other things are secondary, is man as the member of a
   political community. Rightly to understand man in that
   character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the
   developments, that political society has taken. Effects have
   to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up
   to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those
   needful processes if we confine our studies either to the
   political societies of our own day or to political societies
   on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch
   the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human
   nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in
   all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all
   circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.
   … In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always
   repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to
   say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical
   position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical
   position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has
   gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is
   unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the
   working of like causes, still the two results can never be
   exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself
   takes its place among the causes of the later result.
   Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and
   they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from
   being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully
   distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the
   oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy
   that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from
   small occasions.
{1649}
   A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with
   gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in
   telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest
   causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by
   some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal
   quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal
   of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both
   in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal
   of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without
   notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a
   certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes
   and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories
   which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great
   events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak
   of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the
   causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to
   be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of
   really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its
   place among determining causes. In any large view of history,
   we must always be on our guard against either underrating or
   overrating the actions of individual men. History is something
   more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most
   important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,
   that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,
   can direct the course of history according to their own will
   and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no
   danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run
   counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal
   or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that
   the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it
   is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that
   there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small
   men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk
   of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we
   should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man
   has some influence on the course of history."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 207-215._

HISTORY:
   The Philosophy of History

   "The philosophy of history is not a something separate from
   the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The
   more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets
   into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the
   rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and
   essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever
   species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not
   something separate and distinct from, something over and
   above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.
   He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special
   development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is
   and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character
   it has, and what its relation is to the general development of
   humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of
   that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is
   sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is
   most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which
   is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to
   work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as
   reason and research can ascertain. History always participates
   in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected
   according to some real or supposed principle either of
   efficient or final causation."

      _R. Flint,
      Philosophy of History,
      introduction._

HISTORY:
   The possibility of a Science of History.
   Mr. Buckle's theory.

   "The believer in the possibility of a science of history is
   not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined
   events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions
   which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to
   concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we
   perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that
   those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,
   therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the
   antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we
   could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their
   immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the
   view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by
   system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence
   actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical
   dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined
   events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of
   men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a
   character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely
   the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same
   results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out
   of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the
   results—in other words, all the changes of which history is
   full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress
   or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the
   fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon
   the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.
   These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can
   alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind
   obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled
   by external agents, developing itself according to the
   conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have
   what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but
   incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,
   exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and
   therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would
   not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man
   modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this
   reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.
   The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method
   of discovering the laws of this double modification."

      _H. T. Buckle,
      History of Civilization in England,
      chapter 1._

   "Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the
   unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as
   an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital
   phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are
   the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which
   others have incidentally broached under some formula about
   'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and
   merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,
   as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have
   developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a
   comprehensive historical exposition. …
{1650}
   He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to
   demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the
   way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest
   conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those
   indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all
   probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will
   and predestination, that both are in a great degree
   'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate
   proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which
   History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the
   human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its
   misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of
   outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature
   upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered
   the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore
   elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does
   not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with
   divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an
   illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of
   philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A
   thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call
   all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A
   arises out of _a + x, a_ embracing all that comes to the
   man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,
   age, etc., while the vanishingly little _x_ is his own
   contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly
   small this _x_ may be, it is of infinite value. Morally
   and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the
   brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which
   he had not created. He had learned from one and another master
   to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of
   the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in
   church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him
   at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material
   and technical conditions and such traditions and
   contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would
   be, in the formula A = _a + x_, the service of the
   vanishing little _x_. Similarly everywhere. Let
   statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so
   many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A
   = _a + x_ this _a_ includes all the elements which
   'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,
   thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each
   individual case of the kind has its history, how often a
   touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have
   fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing
   that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the
   tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one
   of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =
   _a + x_ the vanishing little _x_ is of immeasurable
   weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the
   human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man
   will think of denying that the statistical method of
   considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not
   forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant
   to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a
   legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for
   the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'
   definitions concerning intellectual property."

      _J. G. Droysen,
      Outline of the Principles of History
      pages 62-64 and 77-79._

HISTORY:
   History as the root of all Science.
   Lost History.

   "History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the
   first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest
   expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both
   before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,
   unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,
   in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the
   meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,
   are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:
   but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not
   attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough
   to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,
   with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with
   earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or
   cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the
   White, lives between two eternities, and warring against
   Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious
   relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,
   with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History
   may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a
   certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory
   written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,
   conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without
   philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,
   and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably
   recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,
   you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what
   they have thought, which indeed were often a very small
   matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,
   which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off
   from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even
   among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among
   the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but
   enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in
   that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.
   For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but
   recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;
   therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and
   Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the
   aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute
   society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.
   But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and
   recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points
   unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the
   very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we
   know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest
   innovator, which was the more important personage in man's
   history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the
   victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who
   first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak
   tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred
   acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.
{1651}
   Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and
   with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like
   tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,
   are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,
   political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house
   wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of
   the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and
   traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our
   existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of
   Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,
   of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the
   long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the
   first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to
   act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well
   may we say that of our History the more important part is lost
   without recovery."

      _T. Carlyle,
      On History
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2)._

HISTORY:
   Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

   "But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from
   the Present, if there are no institutions in the present
   answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,
   in England at the present time, how then are we to understand
   a state of Society of which they were a component element? The
   answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the
   relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and
   dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between
   the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves
   the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to
   correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in
   early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion
   and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This
   method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been
   followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with
   such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give
   us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and
   other sources the broad historical facts, the form of
   Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and
   Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life
   and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on
   the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects
   existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows
   for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and
   religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real
   and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the
   working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the
   husks with which the historians have furnished us."

      _J. B. Crozier,
      Civilization and Progress,
      page 35._

HISTORY:
   The Moral lessons of History.

   "Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had
   he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe
   at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the
   world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace
   in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles
   bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;
   and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of
   destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what
   are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and
   nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a
   study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the
   centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners
   change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on
   the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous
   deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the
   price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief
   offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone
   endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,
   but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and
   other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is
   that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect
   little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Short Studies on Great Subjects,
      pages 27-28._

HISTORY:
   The Educational and Practical value of History.

   "It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of
   reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches
   men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of
   evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of
   authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more
   than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am
   inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of
   formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no
   doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with
   demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many
   excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of
   the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is
   largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the
   conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about
   historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your
   notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place
   yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each
   side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the
   point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up
   upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can
   give them. You will find that few practices do more to
   elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      The Political Value of History,
      pages 47-49._

   "He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action
   must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself
   to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling
   to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason
   to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly
   accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in
   statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic
   professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by
   those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of
   probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.
   This is the essential reason why the study of history is so
   important an element in the work of improving the judgment,
   and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger
   interests of communities and states. It is a study of
   humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.
   The student of history surveys the relations of life in
   essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys
   them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical
   method is the method that must be used in the common affairs
   of everyday life.
{1652}
   The premises from which the man of business has to draw his
   conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.
   The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the
   endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other
   quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is
   the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points
   of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches
   its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable
   process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value
   and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to
   reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly
   logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the
   most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it
   comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of
   necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and
   contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this
   method of studying men that the historical student has to use.
   His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his
   conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day
   life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product
   of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to
   explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures
   history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why
   the study of history is so necessary a part of a good
   preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.
   Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and
   politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who
   can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics
   are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent
   reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political
   judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of
   all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be
   said that the most important elements of success are the same
   in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of
   statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been
   essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,
   from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.
   It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No
   part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely
   useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may
   be in himself."

      _C. K. Adams,
      A Manual of Historical Literature,
      pp. 15-16._

   "To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not
   like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere
   grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as
   regards the training of the study and the information attained
   in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;
   it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a
   politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;
   beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,
   beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it
   has something of the preciousness of everything that is
   clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its
   value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a
   term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value
   analogous to the value of science; a value as something that
   is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own
   and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial
   attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of
   knowing something that the world does not know,—that
   doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to
   be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It
   is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with
   every step of investigation new points of view open out, and
   new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that
   investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be
   ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible
   materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one
   that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the
   man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,
   new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not
   all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,
   in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a
   consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the
   workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of
   History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its
   own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its
   own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and
   most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most
   wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human
   will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is
   not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the
   freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its
   variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to
   classification, on the generalisations of which we may
   formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are
   far more diversified and less reducible than any other
   phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power
   to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or
   geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,
   in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in
   the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the
   subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which
   it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the
   pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the
   development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the
   ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating
   destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the
   roll of sciences."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of
      Medieval and Modern History,
      lectures 1 and 4._

   "There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that
   I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are
   deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can
   find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;
   and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more
   excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of
   it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,
   without superstition, without imposture, without error, and
   without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the
   harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I
   say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to
   the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it
   enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that
   habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all
   mere amusement or even information that we may gather from
   it."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      English Studies,
      page 382._

{1653}

   "To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not
   Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No
   one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.
   Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge
   as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,
   and for this purpose no study is its equal."

      _W. P. Atkinson,
      On History and the Study of History,
      page 107._

HISTORY:
   The Writing of History.
   Macaulay's view.

   "A history in which every particular incident may be true may
   on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most
   influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners
   and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to
   wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to
   humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.
   Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are
   pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by
   armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no
   treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in
   every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,
   at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society
   presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the
   direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats
   and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable
   amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the
   fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate
   favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the
   good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the
   good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of
   historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that
   produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is
   transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.
   He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by
   contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of
   manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as
   contracted as if they had never stirred from their own
   market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of
   many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet
   be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the
   character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He
   relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his
   characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient
   testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and
   arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have
   been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination
   is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.
   But the scale on which he represents them is increased or
   diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons
   concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they
   elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He
   shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us
   also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of
   manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his
   notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the
   operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark
   the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be
   described, but will be made intimately known to us."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History
      (Essays, volume 1)._

HISTORY:
   The Writing of History.
   Truthfulness in Style.

   "That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of
   being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any
   truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by
   reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the
   truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,
   of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith
   in any narration is much influenced by the personal
   appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There
   is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must
   look into that well before you can know what faith to give
   him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and
   references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in
   him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not
   be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,
   vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both
   inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as
   to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,
   sad work they make between them of the memories of former
   days."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Friends in Council,
      volume 1, pages 199-200._

HISTORY:
   Historical Romance and Romantic History.
   Sir Walter Scott.

   "The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the
   historical romance has made to the stories of elevated
   literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of
   the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the
   novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott
   appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular
   in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real
   genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply
   because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of
   human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in
   the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but
   imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the
   composer; because they were confined to one circle and class
   of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which
   it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of
   variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous
   ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the
   inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how
   ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,
   and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of
   time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a
   new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when
   literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for
   above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels
   of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of
   history were exhausted, and that modern story would never
   present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of
   the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of
   Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to
   the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less
   decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard
   afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original
   thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the
   sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote
   'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through
   the clouds."

      _Historical Romance
      (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845)._

{1654}

   "Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having
   falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget
   the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally
   presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of
   events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in
   painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of
   detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined
   important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of
   all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has
   pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

      _G. H. Lewes,
      Historical Romance
      (Westminster Review, March, 1846)._

   "The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the
   invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry
   Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,
   at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king
   and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he
   means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the
   examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct
   interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,
   customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny
   and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real
   developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle
   of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of
   the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places
   the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,
   human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything
   peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the
   aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and
   manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and
   yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details
   is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the
   past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain
   men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there
   is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England
   than in the philosophically false compilations which still
   possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in
   the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old
   Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'
   and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

      _A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era,
      Historical Essays, etc., essay 9._

   "We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought
   history home to people who would never have looked into the
   ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us
   confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods
   which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either
   of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.
   Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott
   to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great
   personages of history were after all men and women of flesh
   and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical
   literature there is visible the effort to make history more
   personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly
   read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving
   that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its
   origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay
   grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his
   sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had
   read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the
   clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of
   the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally
   possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again
   in his essays, and which at last he realized with such
   wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make
   history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the
   most famous of a large group of writers who have been
   possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical
   romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.
   And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this
   is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have
   genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind
   of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.
   Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose
   perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national
   events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the
   elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not
   like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than
   is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to
   submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of
   life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like
   romance, so history when it is studied in original documents
   looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which
   historians have accustomed us to."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      History and Polities
      (Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879)._

HISTORY:
   How to study History.

   "The object of the historical student is to bring before his
   mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times
   which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from
   a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more
   elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system
   of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to
   read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three
   things carefully, the historical student carries away an
   impression of his period which will never be effaced."

      _Prof. A. B. Hart,
      How to Study History
      (Chautauquan, October, 1893)._

HISTORY:
   The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

   "When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil
   thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before
   he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,
   and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.
   Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on
   the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his
   learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his
   insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish
   to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which
   have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them
   is universal history, the general course of the history of the
   world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more
   important for the consideration of any human being than the
   knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since
   the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now
   attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to
   know how affairs came into that position. Besides the
   satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we
   can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere
   survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in
   the character of the community.
{1655}
   Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German
   parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two
   books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the
   present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these
   universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In
   England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,
   and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an
   essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is
   taken as a subject under certain conditions in the
   Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the
   notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject
   who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,
   mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the
   student did know, and still more at what he was expected to
   know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of
   all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of
   Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper
   text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the
   attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no
   difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly
   every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the
   enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic
   march of human events and the preparation for any future
   course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German
   professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few
   English boys or even English men have any notion of their
   centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked
   a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.
   or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.
   D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar
   answer."

      _O. Browning,
      The Teaching of History in Schools
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
      new series, volume 4)._

HISTORY:
   The Importance of Local History.

   "From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded
   that one of the best introductions to history that can be
   given in American high schools, and even in those of lower
   grade, is through a study of the community in which the school
   is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best
   American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local
   interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his
   native country best.' The best students of universal history
   are those who know some one country or some one subject well.
   The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the
   parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are
   historically the ways by which men have approached national
   and international life. It was a preliminary study of the
   geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to
   study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to
   establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:
   'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over
   the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one
   capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the
   globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of
   geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the
   district where we live. … American local history should be
   studied as a contribution to national history. This country
   will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic
   growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm
   of state life. And some day this country will be studied in
   its international relations, as an organic part of a larger
   organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely
   developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,
   and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and
   British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American
   history in its widest relations is not to be written by any
   one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow
   with the nation and with its developing consciousness of
   internationality. The present possibilities for the real
   progress of historic and economic science lie, first and
   foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and
   practical historians, who realize that history is past
   politics and politics present history; secondly, in the
   expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of
   its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations
   of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power
   in these days of growing centralization. National and
   international life can best develop upon the constitutional
   basis of local self-government in church and state. … If
   young Americans are to appreciate their religious and
   political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.
   They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things
   around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for
   town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to
   speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the
   majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as
   the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen
   as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English
   reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught
   to see in the town common or village green a survival of that
   primitive institution of land-community upon which town and
   state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and
   family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place
   hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences
   around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive
   town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a
   name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the
   most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …
   It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development
   of historical science in America if teachers in our public
   schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils
   with special reference to the local environment. … A
   multitude of historical associations gather around every old
   town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and
   traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and
   grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest
   inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old
   documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the
   early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of
   information more authentic than tradition, and yet often
   entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not
   necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban
   dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,
   or even with the presidents of the United States. These
   subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for
   beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of
   greater interest and vitality.
{1656}
   The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the
   world is from a local environment through widening circles of
   interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the
   broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study
   of the community in which the student dwells will serve to
   connect that community not only with the origin and growth of
   the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the
   German fatherland, with village communities throughout the
   Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;
   from these classic lands to Persia and India."

      _H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),
      pages 16-21._

   ----------HISTORY: Start--------

HITCHITIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

HITTITES, The.

   The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or
   Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.
   Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized
   and powerful nation and played a more important part in the
   early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.
   Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria
   which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the
   Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but
   scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be
   found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the
   Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of
   empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from
   the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is
   conjectured that these people were originally from the
   Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are
   still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the
   plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the
   language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that
   language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper
   names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show
   that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 5._

   "We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the
   existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is
   certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also
   by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses
   II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks
   allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already
   exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of
   Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the
   Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could
   summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.
   Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as
   powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,
   and there was always a refuge among them for those who were
   oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a
   Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It
   was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject
   provinces were consolidated together under a central
   authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It
   was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the
   Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented
   the organised union of numerous states and nations under a
   single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,
   empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a
   foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces
   had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could
   be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be
   crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an
   empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia
   Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the
   distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the
   Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the
   tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the
   command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they
   acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and
   followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.
   If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,
   and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact
   homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have
   had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its
   wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors
   would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There
   was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the
   western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had
   their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this
   period lingered on into classical days."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      The Hittites,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Wright,
      The Empire of the Hittites._

      See, also,
      AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

HIVITES, The.

   The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the
   Israelites invaded it.

      See AMALEKITES.

HLÆFDIGE.

      See LADY.

HLAFORD.

      See LORD.

HLUDWIG.

      See LOUIS.

HOARD.
HORDERE.

      See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

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

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

   The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of
   the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of
   surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name
   Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river
   of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,
      and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

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

HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

   ----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

   The great battle which English historians name from the
   village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the
   neighboring town of Hochstadt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

   ----------HOCHSTADT: End--------

{1657}

HODEIBIA, Truce of.

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

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

HOHENZOLLERN:
   Rise of the House of.

   "Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the
   sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north
   from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs
   of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is
   perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old
   Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black
   Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful
   Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name
   'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.
   Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper
   'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars
   climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus
   far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in
   unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but
   we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:
   That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing
   anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its
   'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable
   way ever since."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 5._

   "The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in
   the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the
   Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of
   Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his
   descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired
   extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and
   their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight
   in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was
   enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made
   his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter
   confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained
   knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the
   Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the
   margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 3, chapter 12, section 1._

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND:
   The country and its Name.

      See NETHERLANDS.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.
   Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

   See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.
   The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.
   The Bread and Cheese War.
   End of the Party of the Hooks.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.
   The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.
   Friesland detached.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.
   The Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
   Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.
   Wars with England and France.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.
   The restored Stadtholdership.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.
   French invasion and conquest.
   The Batavian Republic.
   The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.
   Annexation to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
   Independence regained.
   Belgium annexed.
   The kingdom of the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

   ----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HOLOCAUST.

   "The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was
   kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by
   the ancient Greeks.

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      page 60._

   ----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.
   Annexation to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

   ----------HOLSTEIN: End--------

HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

   "The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched
   at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the
   Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by
   [the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated
   conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was
   suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia
   after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the
   influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of
   the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher
   Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the
   deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar
   dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by
   the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia
   signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,
   without attaching much importance to what he did. … The
   emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first
   declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a
   political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a
   religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich
   accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du
   verbiage.'
{1658}
   Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,
   with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it
   seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi
   observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of
   events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest
   real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance
   of the good understanding between the powers who had put down
   Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good
   understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the
   20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers
   should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to
   regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It
   was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up
   close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and
   Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the
   Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to
   be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of
   repression."

      _M. E. G. Duff,
      Studies in European Polities,
      chapter 2._

   The text of the Treaty is as follows:

   "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy
   Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their
   Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
   Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events
   which have marked the course of the three last years in
   Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased
   Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place
   their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the
   intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to
   be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon
   the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour
   teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no
   other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,
   their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their
   respective States, and in their political relations with every
   other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of
   that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian
   Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to
   private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the
   councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the
   only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying
   their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have
   agreed on the following Articles:—

      Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,
      which command all men to consider each other as brethren,
      the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the
      bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and
      considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on
      all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and
      assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their
      subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead
      them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are
      animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

      Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,
      whether between the said Governments or between their
      Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal
      service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the
      mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to
      consider themselves all as members of one and the same
      Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on
      themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern
      three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,
      and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of
      which they and their people form a part, has in reality no
      other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really
      belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures
      of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,
      our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of
      Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their
      people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means
      of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,
      and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every
      day more and more in the principles and exercise of the
      duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

      Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow
      the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,
      and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness
      of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should
      henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the
      influence which belongs to them, will be received with
      equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in
      triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,
      14/26th September."

   "It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of
   the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to
   it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and
   Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither
   the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

      _E. Hertslet,
      Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319._

   "The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name
   of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received
   a letter declaring that his principles had the personal
   approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The
   Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and
   in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and
   of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

   "Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as
   'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a
   religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would
   misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none
   knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,
   and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many
   crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made
   Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe
   conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.
   Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose
   common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein
   approved. He exerted his influence over each of them
   separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his
   minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch
   against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he
   won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked
   every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He
   told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he
   prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for
   truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by
   which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were
   governed.
{1659}
   In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning
   nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel
   in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of
   craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his
   competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal
   than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and
   nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,
   sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg
   dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that
   House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.
   But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,
   whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose
   preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of
   his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all
   change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface
   smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a
   spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'
   he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the
   spiders only because they die naturally so young that they
   have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the
   nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his
   forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due
   quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He
   seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might
   have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick
   William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty
   in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most
   dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment
   of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth
   century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the
   resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort
   towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names
   have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.
   The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than
   Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in
   inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and
   all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he
   flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish
   Inquisitors had for heretics."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

   Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in
   Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which
   sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely
   compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the
   celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association
   was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the
   lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very
   adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed
   at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a
   regularly organized police, it then consisted of a
   confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a
   solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties
   in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by
   deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,
   transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws
   which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the
   sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed
   force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of
   1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and
   inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …
   In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that
   if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his
   property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to
   the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the
   king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be
   put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand
   and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the
   license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,
   and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was
   one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project
   for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into
   the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at
   Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially
   from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial
   in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;
   and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,
   against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the
   suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the
   maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its
   jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the
   highways or in the open country, and in cities by such
   offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;
   and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of
   18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or
   householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,
   whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence
   of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the
   villages through which he was supposed to have passed were
   sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,
   stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with
   such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of
   two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty
   families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction
   of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified
   cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of
   deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually
   convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions
   were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the
   execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular
   constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages
   attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so
   decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the
   check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it
   required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect
   its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting
   from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation
   by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of
   the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in
   1498, the objects for which it was established having been
   completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the
   nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.
   The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate
   functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,
   over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate
   jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa
   Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,
   dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with
   various modifications of form, down to the present century."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      introduction, section 1, with foot-note,
      and part 1, chapter 6._

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

HOLY LEAGUES:
   Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

   German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of
   Smalcald.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

   Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

   Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

   Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia
   against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

   ----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
   Its origin.

      See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

   Its extinction.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

   "A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine
   of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,
   and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their
   kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round
   which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the
   Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.
   The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to
   frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it
   a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as
   Holyrood House."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

   The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was
   carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"
   by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and
   then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which
   it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

   "When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person
   historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the
   main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful
   poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the
   world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is
   conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different
   from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'
   … At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the
   poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a
   school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making
   it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the
   question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,
   whether they present substantially the character of what may
   be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually
   diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of
   the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a
   far greater amount of information than is to be found in any
   other literary production of the same compass. In the second
   place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be
   had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the
   utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to
   us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most
   gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they
   became such as in later times we know them. … And this
   picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars
   and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an
   age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …
   probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place
   to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his
   knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an
   ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …
   It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of
   Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the
   time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching
   revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for
   those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this
   belief involves the further proposition that the poet was
   severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects
   of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon
   the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a
   perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an
   historical character. … The question … has to be decided …
   by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I
   venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an
   European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian
   Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when
   the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the
   race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its
   close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy
   was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking
   the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol
   of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform
   assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length
   pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After
   slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the
   publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.
   … Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,
   or till long after, the period of their composition; and that
   works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written
   characters, could not have been transmitted through a course
   of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they
   could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at
   a later date."

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Homer (Literature Primers),
      chapters 1-2._

{1661}

   "Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total
   unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion
   reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so
   remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition
   that when they were composed the revolution in question had
   not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

      _A. M. Clerke,
      Familiar Studies in Homer,
      chapter 1._

   "It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have
   the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards
   the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of
   the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer
   makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist
   a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions
   for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city
   'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such
   as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

      See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

   It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the
   poems describe was one which really existed in the place where
   they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking
   illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that
   we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time
   before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the
   traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But
   the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for
   there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation
   which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which
   we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered
   by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of
   these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with
   Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be
   far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in
   dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains
   the question of the historical basis which may underlie the
   story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of
   Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that
   the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But
   here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those
   of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to
   confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the
   tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey
   are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been
   gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued
   at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century
   ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,
   and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical
   view."

      _W. Leaf,
      Companion to the Iliad,
      introd._

   "It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and
   Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,
   Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far
   from the coast on which these three names were attached to
   successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the
   ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must
   turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims
   of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the
   chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient
   seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not
   actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the
   seat of Achæan empire."

      _D. B. Monro,
      Homer and the Early History of Greece
      (English Historical Review, January, 1886)._

   "I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a
   single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration
   which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This
   primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.
   C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,
   and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original
   nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece
   proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was
   carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;
   and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local
   traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and
   Ionian society."

      _R. C. Jebb,
      The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,
      page 14._

      _R. C. Jebb,
      Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey._

   "We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The
   inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory
   seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly
   exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great
   harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and
   sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more
   difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may
   make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we
   have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,
   the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to
   do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and
   compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse
   places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,
   demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the
   opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of
   literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the
   'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

      _A. Lang,
      Homer and the Epic,
      chapters 7 and 13._

HOMERITES, The.

      See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

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

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

   A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding
   army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by
   the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the
   Battle of Humbledon.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

      SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

   ----------HONDURAS: Start--------

HONDURAS:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.
   Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.
   Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Separation from Spain and independence.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.
   The British colony.

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

   ----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

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

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.
   Ceded to Great Britain.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS,
   Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.
   Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.
   Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.
   Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.
   Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

   "When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the
   hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated
   with the general body of the county or counties in which it
   lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole
   apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under
   the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession
   of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out
   again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

       _W. Stubbs,
       Constitutional History of England,
       chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1)._

HOOD, General John B.
   The Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),
      and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Transfer to Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

   At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

HOPLITES.

   Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

      See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

   The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At
   the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed
   many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.
   They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests
   very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel, introduction,
      section 4._

   F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided
   into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim
   and the Anakim.

      _Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      See, also,
      JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

   The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,
   in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was
   overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New
   Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape.
   Discovered by Drake (1578).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES.
HOSPITES.
HOSPITIUM.

   "In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and
   Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent
   tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger
   was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for
   a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation
   which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form
   previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who
   might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his
   protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.
   … An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the
   parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to
   each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double
   signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an
   entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the
   covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …
   The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …
   The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their
   descendants might recognise each other. This token, called
   'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process
   of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common
   for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any
   individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of
   the whole community."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:
   A. D. 1115-1310.
   The origin and rise of the order.

   "Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,
   had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission
   of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of
   the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the
   Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks
   were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A
   nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of
   pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated
   to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of
   Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,
   to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the
   bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the
   faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with
   attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of
   Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the
   hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the
   sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.
   Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;
   his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the
   Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from
   the monastery.
{1663}
   They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed
   for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight
   points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia
   to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as
   brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of
   the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight
   of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of
   Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in
   the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

   To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military
   character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care
   of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which
   characterized the Knights of St. John during all their
   subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was
   drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three
   classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms
   and form a military body for service in the field against the
   enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem
   in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or
   gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,
   the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,
   and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the
   care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were
   considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual
   three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the
   Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order
   spread and the number of its members and convents increased,
   it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or
   'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were
   ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,
   Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black
   robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight
   points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all
   Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;
   but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights
   should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.
   … It was not long before the new Order found a field for the
   exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were
   always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every
   battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their
   gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted
   fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of
   every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the
   King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal
   kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its
   ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see
   JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there
   the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and
   fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel
   and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their
   pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and
   turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the
   Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to
   cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying
   pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the
   enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence
   they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in
   a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 3-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbe de Vertot,
      History of the Knights Hospitallers,
      books 1-3 (volume 1)._

      _A. Sutherland,
      Achievements of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.
   Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

   "The most important conquest of the time … was that of
   Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
   both from its durability and from the renown of the
   conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had
   been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to
   remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form
   a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests
   from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to
   maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited
   permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the
   Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and
   bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,
   besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under
   the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,
   the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.
   So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they
   sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to
   withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its
   dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him
   with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus
   dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the
   siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the
   city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this
   beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian
   Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the
   chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb
   at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a
   romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained
   the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening
   to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a
   class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The
   little realm they governed as an independent state consisted
   of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,
   Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite
   continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,
   and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still
   overhang the sea."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 7-10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.
   Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.
   Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

   In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned
   his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at
   that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small
   state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of
   Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the
   field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,
   appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of
   5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers
   de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour
   rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous
   juncture.
{1664}
   No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's
   vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the
   Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common
   enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes
   to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and
   trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security
   against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,
   with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,
   exhorted the contending powers to forget their private
   quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels
   from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian
   name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both
   parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.
   of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they
   exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his
   operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The
   grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of
   patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six
   months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every
   post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to
   numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from
   the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he
   surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,
   and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed
   of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their
   ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on
   each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it
   equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted
   the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which
   they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power
   and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to
   the infidels."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Torr,
      Rhodes in Modern Times,
      chapter 1. _

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.
   Occupation of Malta.
   Improvement and fortification of the island.
   The great siege.
   The Turks repelled.

   "Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]
   predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part
   of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to
   the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own
   interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no
   revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged
   with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made
   frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and
   dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this
   transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he
   not only relieved himself of all further expense on its
   account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of
   his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his
   brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It
   was not very long before the wilderness before them was to
   blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was
   brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.
   Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the
   rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was
   soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In
   a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,
   which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its
   garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works
   was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the
   accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not
   until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are
   now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices
   that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride
   of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to
   battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils
   of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights
   of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the
   Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the
   East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,
   "resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the
   knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by
   driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a
   formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de
   la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long
   in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself
   for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He
   addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He
   summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to
   Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming
   struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and
   military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia
   of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000
   men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and
   Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,
   strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition
   for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette
   could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000
   men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already
   arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their
   way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The
   Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It
   comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a
   number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,
   independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,
   was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The
   command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One
   of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the
   Spaniards at Gelves.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

   He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces
   were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …
   The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the
   island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops
   speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies
   over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in
   the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege
   of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at
   the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on
   the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then
   called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a
   mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army
   and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand
   episodes of war in the 16th century.
{1665}
   The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final
   assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of
   Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of
   these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of
   its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated
   at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha
   of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,
   and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.
   After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …
   concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out
   from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern
   peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the
   extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by
   works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications
   of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the
   fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their
   batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th
   they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily
   repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the
   Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault
   and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant
   knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were
   relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the
   disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of
   Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no
   reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.
   … The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than
   30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most
   grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500
   soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and
   children,—are said to have perished."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 4, chapters 2-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Porter,
      History of the Knights of Malta,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Story of the Barbary Corsairs,
      chapter 13._

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.
   Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

   "The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the
   Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on
   the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest
   and affluence produced gradually their usual
   consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The
   'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long
   years, in which there were no events to bind them together in
   united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had
   become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789
   the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European
   nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had
   received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their
   grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully
   contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in
   his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the
   confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when
   the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

      _W. Tallack,
      Malta,
      section 8._

   "In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates
   and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed
   to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and
   executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in
   Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and
   there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were
   incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the
   Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory
   had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary
   doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to
   rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights
   (of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000
   troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before
   Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after
   troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were
   at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand
   Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely
   sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and
   refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were
   taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all
   French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of
   taking up arms against their country, and declared that he
   would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was
   rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the
   palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the
   knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to
   the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted
   Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of
   capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of
   France, and all the knights were required to quit the island
   within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,
   taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be
   collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the
   following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly
   obtained possession of the island, which has ever since
   remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient
   Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and
   practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,
   Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired
   to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at
   Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the
   mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of
   Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had
   for some time been protector of the Order. This election was
   undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of
   Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be
   restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French
   nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried
   into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out
   again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to
   England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.
   Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand
   Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to
   do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor
   Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the
   knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand
   Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since
   appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,
   Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …
{1666}
   [Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of
   titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'
   In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a
   capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In
   or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of
   the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of
   Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the
   Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the
   Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting
   hospitals."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,
      part 1, chapter 20._

   ----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

HOSPODAR.

   "A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =
   Lord)."

      _J. Samuelson, Roumania,
      page 209, foot-note._

HOSTIS.

      See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and A. D. 1486-1806;
      also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

      See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

      See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

   "No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent
   military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.
   1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly
   under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These
   were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so
   much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls
   were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an
   institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well
   as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under
   Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at
   their head."

       _E. A. Freeman,
       Norman Conquest,
       chapter 6, section 2,
       and appendix, note kkk (volume 1)._

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,
and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

   Naval Victory (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American
Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);
      1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

      See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,
   Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

HUGUENOTS.
   First appearance and disputed origin of the name.
   Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.
   Ascendancy in Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.
   Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.
   The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.
   The Wars of Religion in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.
   The Edict of Nantes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Their formidable organization and political pretensions.
   Continued desertion of nobles.
   Leadership of the clergy.
   Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Renewed revolt.
   Second Treaty of Montpellier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.
   End of political Huguenotism in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.
   Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.
   The climax of persecution in France.
   The Dragonnades.
   The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
   The great exodus.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.
   The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

   ----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

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

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

   Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,
   after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the
   Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until
   October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 12._

      See, also,
      WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

      See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

      See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

   "The union of a number of townships for the purpose of
   judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is
   known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering
   to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the
   'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,
   which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,
   has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use
   of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in
   comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent
   its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred
   judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains
   abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration
   of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of
   the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other
   enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may
   be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive
   organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial
   hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is
   capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been
   regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of
   land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to
   the host; as representing the original settlement of the
   hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of
   which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar
   to English history, and the same result may have followed from
   very different causes as probably as from the same causes,
   here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already
   stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in
   hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was
   carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems
   reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,
   we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the
   hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake
   court, was held every month; it was called six days before the
   day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was
   attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their
   stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the
   reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal
   jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial
   court leet."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1)._

   "By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much
   diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between
   township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of
   the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost
   everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred
   had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of
   its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and
   should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of
   the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but
   they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name
   soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,
   for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred
   flourished and became the political unit, like the township in
   New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the
   district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it
   was also the representative district. … The hundred had also
   its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects
   like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings
   enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often
   exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution
   they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct
   in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the
   county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this
   day."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      chapter 4, section 1._

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

   The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his
   return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at
   Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The
   Hundred Days.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

      See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

   ----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

HUNGARIANS, The.

   "Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the
   Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The
   original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called
   Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian
   mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,
   who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the
   most important of the western branches are the Finns and
   Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk
   Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great
   Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish
   tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the
   plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the
   reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.
   They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the
   name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has
   been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is
   difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the
   foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the
   degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by
   historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;
   but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,
   the description given of them by an old chronicler of the
   ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely
   with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

      _Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

   "That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural
   Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions
   being against it. Hence it is just possible that a
   whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the
   Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most
   Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 11._

   "According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling
   caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor
   the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';
   and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the
   rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Patterson,
      The Magyars,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

{1668}

HUNGARIANS:
   Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

   "The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and
   probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by
   internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home
   for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores
   of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly
   struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the
   very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the
   eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their
   chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the
   frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the
   conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of
   about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,
   and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The
   country which they prepared to take possession of, and the
   central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up
   into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin
   and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and
   Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with
   his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four
   centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most
   dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost
   unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from
   victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the
   land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the
   same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the
   Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.
   Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on
   the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was
   Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far
   from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody
   adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken
   by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor
   Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.
   The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought
   the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down
   from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient
   to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths
   of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by
   mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from
   the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were
   simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the
   inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of
   Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were
   repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy
   tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her
   geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of
   these new neighbours."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.
   Ravages in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.
   Repulse from Germany.

   "The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by
   the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,
   in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the
   Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the
   Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his
   son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest
   estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic
   faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and
   they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the
   heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho
   dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,
   unless they were true to each other, their religion and
   country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were
   reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in
   eight legions, according to the division of provinces and
   tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].
   … The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly
   passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the
   Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the
   baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The
   battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the
   Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with
   an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought
   under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in
   merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred
   years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the
   flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers
   of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the
   hope of mercy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
      chapter 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 135 (volume 1)._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, pages 656-665._

      _A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 8._

   ----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

HUNGARY:
   Ancient.

      See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY:
   The Huns in possession.

      See HUNS.

HUNGARY:
   The Avars in possession.

      See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
   Christianization of the Magyars.
   Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.
   Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

   "King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN
   EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan
   Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was
   never again able to cross, and even within these limits the
   Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part
   they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to
   exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast
   they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from
   the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to
   develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours
   gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …
   Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke
   of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,
   and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her
   influence in favour of her religion.
{1669}
   She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came
   to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and
   Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic
   conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the
   'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of
   the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He
   sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was
   able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great
   Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,
   continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to
   Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and
   solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name
   of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort
   of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially
   from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate
   relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the
   empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir
   presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,
   daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of
   Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another
   married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,
   Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European
   states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by
   Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the
   position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its
   conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar
   historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the
   invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king
   Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use
   persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he
   hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an
   ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who
   graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,
   and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that
   he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the
   Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to
   Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege
   of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of
   the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity
   of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,
   however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,
   still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this
   great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom
   between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of
   Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.
   His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in
   the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his
   son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written
   his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as
   a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were
   harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of
   August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his
   nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was
   driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the
   country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a
   tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of
   Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother
   Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with
   revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in
   1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails
   in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This
   prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry
   IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating
   position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him
   of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for
   having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged
   to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling
   against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged
   the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience
   to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in
   the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He
   was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to
   make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The
   dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …
   The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]
   was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been
   elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left
   the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made
   himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had
   himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of
   Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,
   Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted
   them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself
   crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this
   time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very
   much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria
   in later times."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 5-6._

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.
   Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
   The Golden Bull of King Bela.
   Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.
   The end of the Arpad dynasty.

   "Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,
   after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most
   important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about
   the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the
   Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.
   ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by
   several important events. Having entirely reduced
   Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his
   kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of
   Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the
   German settlers received from the king a separate district,
   being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with
   particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th
   century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,
   and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian
   war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.
   More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the
   throne in 1205. …
{1670}
   Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army
   to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],
   nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While
   the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and
   afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a
   scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and
   unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign
   favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the
   oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the
   king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his
   arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in
   addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in
   the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles
   became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the
   privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden
   Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions
   of this charter were as follows:

   1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked
   either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

   2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being
   previously tried and legally sentenced;

   3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the
   property of the nobles;

   4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers
   of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

   5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor
   given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

   The most important point, however, was article 31st, which
   conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case
   of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions
   contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower
   clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the
   determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of
   the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the
   charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning
   of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions
   caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary
   in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,
   after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in
   Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a
   greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary
   with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the
   Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and
   Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of
   Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions
   facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on
   the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the
   total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with
   astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a
   few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not
   contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised
   snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making
   their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths
   of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo
   was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of
   state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a
   proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king
   [calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed
   the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable
   people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their
   homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work
   of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and
   then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in
   the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the
   Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving
   assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a
   prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to
   Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime
   Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the
   death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne
   by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen
   was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied
   himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew
   and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called
   the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal
   dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were
   continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own
   tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,
   was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the
   house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with
   Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his
   son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops
   before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to
   sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew
   having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this
   matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.
   Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.
   Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,
   who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of
   his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring
   them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of
   Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 2._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.
   Wallachian struggle for independence.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
   The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.
   Conquests of Louis the Great.
   Beginning of wars with the Turks.
   The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

   On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male
   line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the
   crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length
   fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family
   of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles
   Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of
   Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the
   crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This
   prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a
   distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered
   from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of
   Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,
   Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and
   at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his
   uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded
   him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).
{1671}
   This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards
   Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus
   united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The
   reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had
   to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with
   the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a
   formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of
   Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.
   1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the
   Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This
   disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of
   Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the
   Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,
   which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to
   provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund
   acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of
   Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of
   the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to
   protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of
   Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of
   Austria, who reigned only two years."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 5._

   "Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first
   prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of
   Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the
   Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had
   married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,
   Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured
   for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German
   Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,
   to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with
   her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though
   40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future
   husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in
   Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her
   to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian
   nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his
   dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund
   expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon
   after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and
   immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her
   agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.
   He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.
   … The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both
   to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal
   expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,
   before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,
   forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity
   and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti
   Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;
   while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king
   in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged
   the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the
   clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the
   feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations
   were now adopted respecting the military system of the
   kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually
   to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus
   [Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of
   the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of
   Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife
   Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long
   minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her
   to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown
   should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging
   that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would
   endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the
   duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the
   Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.
   … Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the
   court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth
   brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,
   was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of
   the arrangement that had been made; and the news having
   arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor
   of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry
   the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the
   Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had
   accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.
   … The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was
   headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was
   compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,
   carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her
   infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick
   III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and
   Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed
   upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that
   one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the
   contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,
   1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the
   ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the
   great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over
   the Turks gave him enormous influence."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      introduction (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.
   Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.
   Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.
   Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.
   The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.
   Regency of Huniades.
   His defeat of the Turks and his death.
   His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

   Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement
   that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary
   until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be
   possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without
   issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two
   daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother
   Casimir.
{1672}
   The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;
   and the administration during his minority vested in two
   Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the
   Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George
   Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in
   the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a
   ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young
   Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians
   entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the
   redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the
   Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found
   himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the
   Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of
   the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the
   age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the
   Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign
   at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of
   Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were
   directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government
   caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the
   custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,
   and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a
   force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;
   he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and
   compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person
   of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then
   assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in
   their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together
   with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal
   great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic
   does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following
   year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant
   of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a
   level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia
   at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to
   visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the
   power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as
   to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An
   attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;
   but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and
   prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an
   apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the
   regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the
   credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the
   moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over
   his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks
   [1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;
   the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the
   Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;
   whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.
   … The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain
   preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,
   were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to
   30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see
   TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long
   survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the
   enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.
   Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who
   were as much the idols of their country as they were objects
   of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took
   care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but
   the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus
   Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,
   Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his
   favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King
   Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured
   into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].
   Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the
   indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his
   prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant
   disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering
   for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged
   the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the
   Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,
   whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians
   rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on
   the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified
   their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing
   his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for
   40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled
   himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and
   his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him
   in a war with the new King of Hungary."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 28 (volume 2)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.
   Wallachia taken from the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.
   King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of
   Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
   The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the
   Turks.
   Conquest and occupation of Austria.

   Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of
   George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his
   father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now
   involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was
   agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles
   breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to
   Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having
   subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built
   the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed
   Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,
   Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and
   prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,
   he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated
   by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by
   an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the
   united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two
   sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years
   and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to
   repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of
   Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a
   reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself
   [on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of
   100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the
   side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.
{1673}
   Having in consequence of these successes delivered his
   dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to
   gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had
   afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating
   Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had
   abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to
   fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of
   Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland
   and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally
   conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."
   Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks
   (1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.
   "Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the
   smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran
   the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and
   either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,
   as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,
   and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions
   imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment
   of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,
   when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in
   hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by
   his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he
   acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,
   Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in
   1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his
   death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his
   arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the
   former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four
   years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of
   the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that
   they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the
   neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of
   Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite
   residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary
   dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach
   of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to
   convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of
   Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the
   small force at his command, could only retard the progress of
   the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In
   consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in
   November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted
   to retain possession of the conquered territories, until
   Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed
   the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that
   period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 18 (volume 1)._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
   Death of Matthias.
   Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of
   Jagellon.
   Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.
   Loss of the Austrian provinces.
   Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.
   Insurrection of the Kurucs.
   Loss of Belgrade.
   Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.
   The end of Hungarian independence.

   "When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,
   who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his
   power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present
   time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power
   had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of
   Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had
   no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his
   natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his
   successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,
   without having arranged anything definitely for the future of
   his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the
   reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to
   watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of
   rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned
   to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of
   Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old
   rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.
   Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by
   Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against
   Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.
   Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the
   Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against
   his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of
   Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …
   whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed
   to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in
   case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in
   which the king disposed of the country without consulting the
   diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks
   thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet
   II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not
   be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,
   and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly
   disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by
   the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in
   his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and
   later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave
   the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to
   Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …
   To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a
   terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz
   came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade
   against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,
   as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then
   turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible
   insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection
   of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief
   leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the
   Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle
   near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their
   vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on
   a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a
   red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage
   that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died
   in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be
   summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the
   defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was
   corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and
   his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.
{1674}
   The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the
   leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of
   sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the
   greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever
   deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign
   who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before
   he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his
   subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,
   captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took
   it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The
   key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King
   Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes
   were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when
   joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies
   of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman
   quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300
   cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against
   the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the
   captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey
   of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the
   Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured
   Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the
   right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army
   was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,
   archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom
   Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by
   Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi
   wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help
   to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the
   impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At
   first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the
   Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his
   army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that
   then the main body of his troops should close around them.
   When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were
   overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.
   They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them
   lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;
   seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the
   field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and
   after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they
   reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias
   Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were
   either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the
   tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land
   covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended
   with Louis II."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 3._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
   Election of John Zapolya to the throne.
   Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.
   Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.
   Great invasion by Soliman.
   Siege of Vienna.
   The sultan master of the greater part of the country.
   Progress of the Reformation.
   Soliman's last invasion.

   "No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,
   under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily
   electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir
   to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,
   far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,
   was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of
   the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne
   found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania
   and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at
   Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,
   which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya
   king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod
   receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the
   palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,
   first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the
   widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to
   enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her
   role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married
   to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon
   repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's
   arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic
   party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of
   Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between
   representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.
   Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts
   beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the
   Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the
   capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign
   mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine
   himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom
   for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the
   renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from
   the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the
   great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met
   no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to
   enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon
   "Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.
   His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed
   himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to
   pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that
   his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected
   native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and
   Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's
   mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna
   [1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of
   Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of
   Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not
   forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though
   neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the
   advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the
   Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their
   way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have
   numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish
   boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of
   the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the
   surrounding country terribly ravaged.
{1675}
   Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands
   of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery
   the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is
   "an epoch in the history of the world."]

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 9. _

   … Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over
   the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to
   Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on
   between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda
   had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;
   but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to
   eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the
   Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to
   the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in
   vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it
   was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,
   which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the
   country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to
   Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to
   Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya
   should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was
   to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense
   indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and
   ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of
   momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development
   of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which
   removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the
   very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he
   had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the
   undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of
   Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John
   Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was
   supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George
   Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand
   and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged
   suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to
   Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army
   occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made
   his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep
   permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and
   assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade
   her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice
   which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.
   Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of
   Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,
   became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new
   complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when
   Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of
   guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,
   began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,
   aware of these circumstances, marched an army into
   Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain
   over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a
   cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced
   into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this
   about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk
   Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his
   own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the
   Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by
   his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of
   Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of
   the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain
   to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his
   Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked
   his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through
   the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian
   throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.
   Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;
   Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,
   got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his
   Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to
   that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as
   his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part
   of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his
   authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left
   Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,
   although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he
   observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and
   progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious
   reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the
   political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of
   Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many
   persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the
   Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it
   in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might
   win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus
   increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian
   spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its
   way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of
   considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a
   smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's
   followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its
   centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In
   1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from
   his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and
   against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another
   formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress
   of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,
   by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.
   These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for
   nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without
   surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of
   20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor
   caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This
   brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new
   peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute
   of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also
   relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a
   sudden death."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. W. Fraser,
      Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
      chapters 12-13._

{1676}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
   Successive disturbances in Transylvania.
   Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and
   consequent revolt.
   Religious persecutions of Rodolph.
   Successful rebellion of Botskai.
   Continued war with the Turks.

   John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the
   peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored
   to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,
   and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace
   offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both
   parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of
   Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to
   acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in
   addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he
   was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,
   with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could
   recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to
   confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to
   him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the
   death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was
   to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the
   crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,
   for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon
   after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to
   Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,
   who had acted with great reputation as the general and
   minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had
   recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.
   … The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by
   Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the
   crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship
   and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a
   delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the
   last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his
   dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first
   obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son
   Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at
   Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the
   Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king
   of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,
   the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which
   secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter
   crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.
   Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was
   easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,
   and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against
   the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in
   Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.
   "The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions
   in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the
   enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the
   side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the
   empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the
   contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for
   its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of
   Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital
   of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.
   He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,
   which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every
   nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.
   This feudal establishment gradually extended along the
   frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,
   at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but
   afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though
   formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,
   Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror
   among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …
   Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by
   Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a
   predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The
   truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by
   Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to
   Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,
   with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …
   Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his
   numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following
   years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended
   with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage
   ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of
   Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary
   turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of
   the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of
   Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother
   Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,
   dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the
   protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high
   spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the
   reins of government before he liberated himself from the
   galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive
   alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain
   Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of
   Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …
   The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …
   By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered
   from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a
   powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond
   signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;
   uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he
   defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and
   drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.
   Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were
   likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the
   Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran
   and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,
   the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,
   at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,
   and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the
   lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his
   arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the
   loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time
   tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without
   vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.
   But this year, though little distinguished by military events,
   was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by
   the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships
   of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."
{1677}
   The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his
   bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,
   but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again
   to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and
   disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent
   finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then
   placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.
   "His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to
   despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other
   magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of
   the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.
   Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies
   of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by
   numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the
   capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and
   inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was
   scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,
   before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated
   by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion
   of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers
   dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the
   principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,
   Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the
   Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with
   little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the
   confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the
   complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and
   indifference; and the German troops being free from control,
   filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,
   however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to
   chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter
   his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most
   intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in
   various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing
   in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the
   principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond
   Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the
   same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed
   to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a
   Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into
   Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally
   inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested
   or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of
   Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].
   … He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if
   he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he
   conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;
   at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and
   Novigrad."

      _W. Coxe
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 38-42 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,
      chapters 12-20._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
   The Turkish war.
   Great defeat at Cerestes.
   The Peace of Sitvatorok.

   'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in
   Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
   that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
   ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
   auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
   Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
   Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
   Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
   Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
   from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
   had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
   loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
   Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
   monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
   the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
   sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
   was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
   True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
   Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
   under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
   the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
   of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
   captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
   junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
   advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
   23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
   the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
   Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
   battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
   to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
   persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
   safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
   was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
   under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
   of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
   time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
   were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
   regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
   and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
   perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
   Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
   Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
   victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
   The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
   peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
   Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
   the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
   Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
   and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
   independent of the Ottoman Empire."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 12._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
   The Pacification of Vienna.
   Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
   Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

   In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
   to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
   by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
   the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
   Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
   restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
   Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
   of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
   that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
   revert to the House of Austria.
{1678}
   "This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
   expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
   of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
   wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
   divisions into which it had been split up by the various
   factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
   was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
   Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
   possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
   736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
   and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
   abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
   plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
   of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
   giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
   Mathias, came to a head.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

   Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
   resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
   compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
   and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
   crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
   king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
   Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
   which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
   coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
   a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
   the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
   that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
   filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
   property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
   disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
   Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
   the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
   into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
   fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
   Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
   unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
   sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
   measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
   the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
   however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
   been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
   by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
   anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
   opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
   wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
   diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
   1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
   aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
   for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
   in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
   tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
   his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
   renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
   his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
   1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
   War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
   "Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
   Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
   Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
   Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
   possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
   regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
   the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
   long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
   successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
   considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
   reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
   according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
   title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
   Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
   Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
   to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
   war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
   men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
   the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
   the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
   of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
   captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
   siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
   famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
   their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
   Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
   in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
   approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
   The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
   began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
   be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
   Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
   Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his
   soldiers.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

   … The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
   Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
   1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
   place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
   enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
   disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
   the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
   against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
   of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
   Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
   became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
   Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
   very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
   Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
   of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
   reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
   his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
   period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
   any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
   revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
{1679}
   No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
   attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
   oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
   left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
   nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
   it."

      _E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapters 15-17._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
   The battle of St. Gothard.
   Liberation of Transylvania.
   A twenty years truce.

   "Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
   empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
   suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
   of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
   like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
   Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
   against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
   House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
   Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
   Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
   Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
   service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
   part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
   Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
   protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
   attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
   alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
   Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
   oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
   themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
   present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
   political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
   remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
   demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
   Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
   XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
   replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
   Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
   to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
   that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
   Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
   aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
   danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
   great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
   Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
   the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
   men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
   Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
   and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
   maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
   intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
   Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
   another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
   Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
   urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
   effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
   Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
   condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
   certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
   of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
   furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
   soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
   Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
   junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
   Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
   offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
   year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
   Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
   them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
   right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
   the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
   was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
   moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
   bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
   French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
   to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
   Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
   Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
   and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
   Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
   continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
   found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
   lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
   Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
   their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
   asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
   terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
   Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
   army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
   and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
   slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
   fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
   of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
   fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
   of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
   the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
   immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
   opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
   their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
   expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
   astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the
   approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
   seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
   years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
   Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
   elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
   his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
   they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
   Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins
   tribute."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 62 (volume 2)._

{1680}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
   Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
   Tekeli's revolt.
   The Turks again called in.
   Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
   Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

   In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
   Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
   the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
   Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
   the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
   Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
   the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
   all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
   and devastations of the generals and the German
   administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
   The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
   their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
   Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
   not even the families of the most illustrious; several
   magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
   oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
   conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
   Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
   frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
   Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
   the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
   any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
   military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
   of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
   defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
   the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
   the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
   truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
   which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
   time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
   Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
   conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
   appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
   and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
   determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
   offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
   Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
   him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
   Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
   Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
   Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
   and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
   to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
   Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
   1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
   large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
   Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

      _S. Menzies,
      Turkey, Old and New,
      book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1)._

   "The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
   to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
   his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
   attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
   but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
   Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
   is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
   in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
   against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
   money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
   invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
   promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
   previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
   army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
   Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
   check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
   strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
   of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
   Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
   Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
   besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
   from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
   the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
   and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
   the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
   in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
   sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
   at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
   storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
   general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
   Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
   Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
   would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
   would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
   the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
   soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
   before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
   to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
   some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
   considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
   Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
   round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
   Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
   The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
   the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
   country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
   September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
   Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
   Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
   and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
   sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
   encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
   him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
   from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
   for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
   able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
   Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
   had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
   action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
   imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
   campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
   chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
   city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
   which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
{1691}
   In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
   intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
   obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
   direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
   was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
   Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
   among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
   turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
   army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
   with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
   in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
   garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
   whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
   became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
   victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
   trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
   Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
   rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
   of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in
   Europe."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 16._

   "It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
   King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
   the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
   the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
   Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
   would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
   Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
   would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
   internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
   of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
   destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
   William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
   of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
   increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
   were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
   Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
   and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
   of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
   and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
   French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
   controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
   decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
   stand neutral."

      _H. E. Malden,
      Vienna, 1683,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 9._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
   End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
   Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
   The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

   The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
   insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
   Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
   warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
   capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
   [1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
   an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
   Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
   Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
   the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
   afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
   the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
   established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
   tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
   the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
   Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
   concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
   monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
   now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
   with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
   the male line of the house of Habsburg."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 20._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
   Expulsion of the Turks.
   Battle of Zenta.
   Peace of Carlowitz.

   After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
   expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
   the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
   the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
   and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
   defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
   they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
   which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
   laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
   June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
   September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
   regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
   years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
   year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
   lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
   battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
   became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
   House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
   this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
   became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
   battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
   Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
   and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
   what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
   reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
   than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
   was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
   end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
   Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
   Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
   river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
   Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
   Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
   expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
   Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
   Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
   Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
   another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
   little progress in the war was made on either side; until
   Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
   wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
{1682}
   The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
   person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
   their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
   11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
   literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
   the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
   reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
   Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
   Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
   Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
   booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
   Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
   was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
   cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
   and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
   of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
   Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
   telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
   inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
   mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
   Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
   Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
   representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
   Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
   after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
   concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
   Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
   territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
   the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
   frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
   only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
   Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
   distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
   country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
   yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
   Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
   Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
   Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
   had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
   and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
   and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
   Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
   its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
   Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
   Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 2 and 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 17._

      See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
      against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
      a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
   The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
   The Treaty of Szathmar.
   Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

   "The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
   territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
   States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
   itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
   considerably increased by the general policy continually
   pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
   Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
   perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
   the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
   entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
   were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
   they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
   Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
   peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
   the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
   rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
   struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
   Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
   became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
   Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
   proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
   Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
   Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
   the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
   became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
   occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
   government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
   reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
   more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
   which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
   correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
   France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
   Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
   decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
   of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
   abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
   which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
   discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
   Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
   help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
   command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
   Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
   the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
   as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
   to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
   besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
   the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
   Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
   Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
   remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
   had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
   which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
   After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
   different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
   century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
   lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
   VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
   war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
   Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
   the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
   Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
   seen, to his own destruction.
{1683}
   After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
   at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
   all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
   the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
   lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
   whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
   heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
   all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
   1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
   The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
   Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
   between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
   provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
   fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
   of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
   Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      part 2, chapter 5-6._

      ALSO in:
      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 4._

      See, also,
      TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
   Belgrade restored to the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   The Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
   Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
   His seizure of Silesia.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
   Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
   Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

   "The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
   Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
   countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
   out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
   With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
   nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
   nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
   political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
   him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
   the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
   never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
   against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
   succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
   April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
   to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
   confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
   eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
   nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
   time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
   neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
   parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
   principles in substituting German, and that language took the
   place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
   wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
   which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
   birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
   Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
   of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
   end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
   liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
   demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
   long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
   revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
   even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
   its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
   equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
   nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
   element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
   were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
   Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
   found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
   toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
   be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
   themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
   party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
   the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
   the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
   their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
   the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
   soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
   money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
   carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
   which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
   censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
   persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
   which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
   part—all helped to create discontent."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapters 23 and 28._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
   War with the Turks.
   Treaty of Sistova.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
   The wakening of the national spirit.
   Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

   "The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
   struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
   been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
   freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
   against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
   break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
   who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
   Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
   promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
   him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
   of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
   emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
   convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
   for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
   pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
   yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
   diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
   with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
   … rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
   trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
   connexion with subsequent events.
{1684}
   It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
   speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
   man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
   by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
   dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
   eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
   his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
   private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
   perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
   the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
   of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
   object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
   of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
   of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
   higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
   language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
   the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
   Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
   official documents, and German and French were alone used in
   good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
   reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
   disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
   to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
   rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
   made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
   magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
   diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
   Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
   he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
   considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
   which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
   successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
   compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
   formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
   promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
   years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
   the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
   still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
   communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
   want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
   political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
   party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
   establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
   London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
   establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
   rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
   Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
   went over to England, studied the principles of the
   steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
   engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
   multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
   sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
   accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
   followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
   up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
   his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
   the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
   them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
   the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
   system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
   equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
   commercial code and of internal communication, and though
   last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
   all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
   practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
   delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
   in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
   that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
   was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
   these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
   looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
   but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
   were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
   had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
   still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
   known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
   without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
   become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
   heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
   apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
   proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
   defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
   otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
   reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
   over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
   the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
   caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
   rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
   even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
   took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
   Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
   reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
   He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
   act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
   the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
   throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
   new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
   session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
   reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
   then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
   his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
   messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
   village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
   flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
   Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
   prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
   brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
   years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
   he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
   ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
   circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
   liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
   period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
   recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
   abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
{1685}
   On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
   named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
   entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
   editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
   that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
   his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
   his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
   where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
   He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
   noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
   classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
   ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
   editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
   now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

      _E. L. Godkin,
      History of Hungary,
      chapter 21._

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
   The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

   "A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
   years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
   The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
   was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
   all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
   apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
   V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
   Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
   Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
   laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
   of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
   tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
   began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
   stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
   was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
   Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
   constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
   national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
   they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
   be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
   distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
   same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
   ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
   great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
   government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
   the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
   Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
   high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
   appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
   wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
   advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
   in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
   and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
   defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
   Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
   the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
   murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
   lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
   General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
   and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
   Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
   October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
   rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
   prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
   different matter, since the constitutional government there
   had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
   Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
   thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
   safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
   Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
   of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
   family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
   retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
   his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
   favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
   young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
   matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
   new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
   government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
   to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
   repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
   in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
   the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
   Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
   throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
   Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
   army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
   together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
   by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
   mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
   though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
   considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
   and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
   out of the country."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Landmarks of Recent History,
      chapter 3, part 5._

   "On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
   promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
   but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
   completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
   institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
   Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
   which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
   all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
   from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
   Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
   late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
   For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
   despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
   that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
   time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
   itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
   raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
   Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
   in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
   arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
   cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
   second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
   political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
   always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
   revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
   danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
   empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
   Hungary.'
{1686}
   … In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
   army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
   was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
   instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
   the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
   August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
   down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
   the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
   300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
   Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
   over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
   of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
   Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
   and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
   the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
   refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
   with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
   and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
   bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
   influence of time, and still more of that great work of
   reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
   effected between the two countries."

      _Francis Deak,
      Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
      chapter 14._

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
   Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
   the United States.
   The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
   Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
   Restoration of pure absolutism.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
   Recovery of nationality.
   Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

   In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
   against the political offenders, and in the following year he
   decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
   were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
   other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
   Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
   administration as to their educational and religious rites in
   the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
   and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
   Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
   Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
   so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
   did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
   their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
   therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
   Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
   gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
   details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
   between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
   from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
   promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
   Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
   Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
   in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
   dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
   presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
   a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
   Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
   freedom and independence as to the administration of its
   affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
   to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
   Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
   described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
   Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as
   follows:

   I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
   consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for
   Finance.

   II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
   of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
   National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
   of the Council.

   III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
   353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
   cases by direct election.

   IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
   from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
   amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
   each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
   and Hungarian Legislatures.

   V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
   Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
   confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
   to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
   Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
   disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
   policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
   messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
   Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
   accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
   the Delegation to which it is addressed.

   VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
   agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
   question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
   The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
   equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
   the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

   VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
   the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
   Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
   to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

   VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
   international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
   their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
   that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
   whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
   is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
   affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
   pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
   Hungarian Legislature.

{1687}

   IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
   the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
   currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
   subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
   where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
   retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
   their own special interests.

   X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
   Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
   by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
   Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
   Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

   It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
   Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
   by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
   concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
   reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
   escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
   Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
   great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
   greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

      _L. Felbermann,
      Hungary and its People,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Francis Deak: a memoir,
      chapters 26-31._

      _Count von Beust,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter 38._

      See, also,
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
   Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
   Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
   Death of Kossuth.

   Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
   1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
   ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
   reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
   countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
   nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
   remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
   brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
   Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
   demonstration of respect.

   ----------HUNGARY: End--------

HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;
      and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNINGEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

HUNKERS.

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

   ----------HUNS: Start--------

HUNS, Gothic account of the.

   "We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who
   surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When
   Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from
   Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have
   before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,
   whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or
   Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of
   his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander
   up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made
   concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most
   fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,
   emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing
   only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …
   Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight
   fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call
   them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with
   little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or
   chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep
   furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show
   the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity
   they apply to every male child that is born among them. …
   They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their
   motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,
   good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and
   always holding their heads high in their pride."

      _Jornandes,
      De Rebus Geticis,
      translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 1._

HUNS:
   First appearance in Europe.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
   The empire of Attila.

   After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had
   halted in their march westward for something more than a
   generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern
   frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in
   its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,
   and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable
   correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in
   the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman
   soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian
   parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable
   antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.
   … About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the
   Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their
   king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the
   Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred
   of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,
   their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his
   systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his
   rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his
   insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning
   which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant
   arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in
   his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless
   cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,
   and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish
   barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the
   civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's
   daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic
   tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his
   nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.
   Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted
   an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and
   preserve, in which men and their works should supply the
   objects and zest of the chase."

      _R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

{1688}

   "He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was
   formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the
   art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the
   Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of
   the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian
   Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and
   Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had
   remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a
   century before."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   "The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy
   Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts
   is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.
   Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the
   only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.
   The impression left upon us by what history records of him is
   that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers
   unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some
   doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the
   wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China
   on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in
   front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who
   ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his
   right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep
   as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with
   Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember
   that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can
   have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and
   Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His
   own personal government, if government it can be called, may
   very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the
   modern Hungary and Transylvania."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

   "As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of
   Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated
   between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian
   hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in
   the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin
   it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the
   long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled
   into a huge village."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 34._

HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
   Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

   Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed
   against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had
   been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.
   "It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had
   surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the
   Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns
   immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,
   and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and
   carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople
   the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor
   thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to
   be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate
   the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his
   merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague
   terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,
   its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south
   of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both
   of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A
   truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated
   its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they
   reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result
   the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.
   Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities
   levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of
   his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen
   days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of
   6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an
   annual tribute."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

HUNS: A. D. 451.
   Attila's invasion of Gaul.

   In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host
   which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward
   the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was
   said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects
   of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in
   Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused
   tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.
   The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with
   the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its
   provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of
   conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage
   riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and
   Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the
   warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the
   plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and
   after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the
   conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by
   the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of
   Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a
   bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with
   resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the
   Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who
   served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of
   danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the
   flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary
   chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly
   stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into
   the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a
   long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of
   Orleans."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35._

   Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,
   who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western
   Empire, had brought about a general combination of the
   barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It
   included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of
   Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the
   Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments
   of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,
   and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The
   latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city
   were already crumbling under his battering rams when the
   banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila
   retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere
   within the wide extent of what were anciently called the
   Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country
   surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.
   451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued
   Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.
{1689}
   The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;
   according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a
   victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose
   king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their
   own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and
   quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably
   best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.
   As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has
   chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good
   reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from
   Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named
   the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the
   battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

   "It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian
   hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and
   said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement
   of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of
   terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he
   was most widely and most fearfully known."

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 6._

HUNS: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.

   In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain
   of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters
   in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he
   nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he
   set his host in motion again, directing its march to the
   Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of
   Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,
   was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of
   the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of
   abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his
   shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns
   to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was
   carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the
   defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to
   Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila
   was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was
   absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of
   the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …
   When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used
   fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as
   Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the
   siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses
   may have been left standing, and others must have slowly
   gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained
   all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old
   ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately
   cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the
   City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.
   … The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more
   terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through
   the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),
   Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At
   Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns
   were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who
   did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the
   fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the
   islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of
   the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in
   time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The
   valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the
   invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome
   as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the
   world? This was the great question that was being debated in
   the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all
   for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into
   the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later
   ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut
   off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of
   Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently
   insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was
   prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from
   Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the
   head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo
   I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific
   disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly
   ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to
   peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in
   fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the
   Appennines, but not beyond.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35._

      See, also,
      VENICE: A. D. 452.

HUNS: A. D. 453.
   Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

   Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a
   drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year
   453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under
   which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his
   death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of
   his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on
   the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority
   of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the
   Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned
   allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the
   Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital
   struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less
   famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with
   that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of
   civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;
   but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered
   the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of
   the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the
   royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in
   the barbarian world."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 4._

   "Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead
   upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The
   rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and
   over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of
   Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we
   saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,
   Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in
   the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which
   we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser
   Scythia.'
{1690}
   Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up
   the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these
   fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern
   himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and
   north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's
   domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and
   victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of
   Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and
   Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended
   kings of the Ostrogoths."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

HUNS:
   Attila in Teutonic legend.

   "Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror
   it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over
   the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon
   forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a
   long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in
   the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,
   before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,
   with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter
   bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that
   Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen
   Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is
   surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.
   Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of
   a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of
   his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,
   fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a
   by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the
   impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little
   more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people
   for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by
   which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a
   far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

      _G. T. Dippold,
      Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,
      chapter 4._

   ----------HUNS: End--------

HUNS, The White.

   "It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of
   Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced
   between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east
   which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the
   middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of
   the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom
   Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called
   Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to
   be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and
   the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be
   quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the
   Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the
   Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or
   sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the
   Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during
   the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east
   of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and
   that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic
   or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,
   had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White
   Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were
   quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.
   … They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were
   decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns
   were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns
   were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well
   civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they
   belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 14._

   "We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these
   formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march
   towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these
   colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and
   extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the
   Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the
   epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their
   manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly
   improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long
   residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain
   a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a
   name which they derived from the change of their complexion,
   soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,
   under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a
   temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who
   exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their
   luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

      _E. Gibbon.
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26._

   The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.

      See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

HUNTER, General David.
   Command in Kansas.

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

   Emancipation Order.

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

   Command in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

   ----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

HURON, Lake:
   Discovery.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

   ----------HURON, Lake: End--------

HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

HUSCARLS.

      See HOUSECARLS.

HUSSARS.

   Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in
   1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the
   attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.
   Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the
   utmost speed, the most important of which was the
   establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was
   enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the
   'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

      _E. Szabad,
      Hungary, Past and Present,
      page 50._

HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.

{1691}

HUSTINGS.
COURT OF HUSTING.

   "The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of
   London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of
   Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway
   once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.
   The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and
   [dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,
   according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'
   in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in
   Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term
   'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied
   at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,
   usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of
   electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its
   strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The
   Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the
   City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling
   disputes between citizen and citizen."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills,
      Court of Husting, London._

HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,
   and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,
      NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

HWICCAS.

   A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in
   Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was
   conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king
   Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.
   The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from
   the throne.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      pages 129-208._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

   "The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ
   [Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month
   Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …
   Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,
   was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the
   flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast
   seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a
   lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by
   the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over
   death itself.'

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      Note, book 9, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, page 222._

HYBLA.

   "There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as
   the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here
   with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were
   called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,
   now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the
   place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.
   This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous
   for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount
   Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is
   now called Paterno."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Story of Sicily,
      page 33._

HYDASPES, The.

   The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,
   on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain
   attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 53._

HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,
   English Wars with.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;
      and 1785-1793.

HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,
   The Nizam of.

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

HY-IVAR, The.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

HYKSOS, The.

      See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

HYLLEANS, The.

   "The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,
   but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to
   have been known to the geographers only from mythological
   writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of
   Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, introduction._

HYMETTUS.

   One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its
   excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,
   which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

      _M. and R. P. Willson,
      Mosaics of Grecian History,
      page 9._

HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

   "As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or
   anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families
   are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan
   names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the
   south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,
   their mutual ancestors."

      _T. D. McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

HYPATIA.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.

HYPERBOREANS, The.

   A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond
   the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in
   the extreme north.

HYPHASIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.

HYRCANIA.
HYRCANIAN SEA.

   "The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]
   on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of
   Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner
   of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three
   degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty
   ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian
   region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east
   longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel
   to one another, having a general direction of east and west.
   … Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;
   and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania
   (Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined
   came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the
   region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains
   were celebrated by the ancient writers."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

   "In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]
   is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,
   according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with
   forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in
   the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down
   to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen
   grains without any special sowing."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also, PARTHIA.

{1692}

I.

IAPYGIANS, The.

      See ITALY, ANCIENT;
      also, ŒNOTRIANS.

IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.

      See LIMIGANTES.

IBERA, Battle at.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

IBERIANS, The eastern.

   "The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of
   later writers. The name is found under the various forms of
   Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence
   the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented
   as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so
   that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of
   the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe
   that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their
   neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the
   original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which
   have defied the destroying touch of time for more than
   twenty-four centuries."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix 1._

      See, also, ALARODIANS.

   If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin
   of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection
   does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and
   subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

IBERIANS, The western.

   "The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess
   exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the
   Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and
   may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking
   peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which
   occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and
   north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be
   any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people
   being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have
   left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of
   their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they
   were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars
   of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and
   Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was
   apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout
   the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it
   is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical
   characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new
   invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of
   history. … These two races were in possession of Spain
   during the very earliest times recorded in history, the
   Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or
   Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along
   the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,
   as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution
   of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have
   noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian
   Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,
   the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection
   also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred
   from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …
   Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul
   as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so
   they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of
   Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the
   Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were
   subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English
   invaders."

      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Early Man in Britain,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 5._

      See CELTS; LIGURIANS;
      AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;
      AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;
      and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

IBERION.

      See ALBION.

IBRAHIM,
   Caliph, A. D. 744.

   Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

ICARIA, Attica.

   One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where
   Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making
   by Dionysus.

ICARIA, in the Ægean.

   An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,
   who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

   ----------ICELAND: Start--------

ICELAND:
   Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

      See THULE.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.
   Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.
   A Norse Commonwealth.
   Development of the Saga Literature.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.
   Political relations with Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

   ----------ICELAND: End--------

ICELANDIC "THING," The.

      See THING.

ICENI, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

ICONIUM, Sultans of.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.

   "Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth
   century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the
   worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence
   spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both
   to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it
   appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the
   Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of
   the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the
   portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the
   sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom
   the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to
   Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the
   churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only
   protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having
   assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to
   be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These
   first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the
   emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a
   very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far
   more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with
   the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping
   religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the
   Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil
   entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all
   images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the
   cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of
   them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.
{1693}
   … A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the
   Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For
   the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by
   the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of
   gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true
   religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and
   Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …
   The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of
   the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either
   massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by
   these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,
   and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented
   him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and
   indignation, he vented his fury against images and their
   worshippers, much more violently than before. For having
   assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of
   Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted
   Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be
   committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments
   upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity
   was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two
   parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and
   worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,
   who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties
   furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and
   assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly
   prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine
   at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either
   of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss
   of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is
   to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in
   behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus
   by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to
   the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he
   laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,
   in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the
   monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than
   his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were
   governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious
   matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at
   Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this
   controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general
   council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,
   according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned
   images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death
   of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his
   father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of
   images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle
   measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.
   being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his
   perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became
   triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire
   during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to
   establish her authority, after entering into a league with
   Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in
   Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the
   second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,
   together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,
   were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was
   established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the
   Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground
   between the contending parties; for they decided, that images
   were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,
   but that no religious worship could be offered to them without
   dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at
   the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with
   the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be
   drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to
   the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his
   approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of
   the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely
   and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by
   such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his
   formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in
   the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the
   Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council
   approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,
   and forbid the worship of images."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,
      book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 10, section 101._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1._

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 6._

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ICTIS.

   An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to
   have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to
   Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the
   mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's
   Mount, is a disputed question.

IDA, Mount.

      See TROJA.

   ----------IDAHO: Start--------

IDAHO:
   The Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

IDAHO: A. D. 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IDAHO: A. D. 1863.
   Organized as a Territory.

   The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of
Congress passed March 3, 1863.

IDAHO: A. D. 1890.
   Admission to the Union as a State.

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

   ----------IDAHO: End--------

IDES.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

IDLE, Battle of the.

   Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,
   and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

IDOMENE, Battle of.

   One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the
   Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by
   Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6)._

IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

IDUMEANS, The.

      See EDOMITES.

IERNE.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

{1694}

IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

IGUALA, The Plan of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

IKENILD-STRETE.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ILA.
ILARCH.

   The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to
   their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was
   commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

ILERDA.

   Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign
   against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

ILIAD, The.

      See HOMER.

ILIUM.

      See TROJA.

ILKHANS, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

ILLINOIA,
   The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
      THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

   ----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

ILLINOIS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.
   Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.
   LaSalle's fort and colony.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.
   The French occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.
   The "Illinois country" under the French.

   "For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the
   region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,
   and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.
   The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but
   little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a
   later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the
   'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate
   government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the
   Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were
   remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with
   the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy
   amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their
   settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,
   patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around
   their old men and patriarchs."

      _J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
      the Mississippi,
      volume 1, pages 181-183._

      See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.
   Settlements and population.

   "Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper
   Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their
   respective villages. These were:

   1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five
   miles below the present site of St. Louis;

   2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles
   above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

   3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve
   miles above Kaskaskia;

   4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles
   above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the
   Mississippi River;

   5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

   6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and
   about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

   These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the
   Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the
   French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or
   3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of
   France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500
   souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to
   460 souls, in 1773."

      _J. W. Monette,
      History of the Discovery and Settlement
      of the Mississippi Valley,
      volume 1, pages 167-168._

   "The population of the French and Indian villages in the
   district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is
   largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis
   Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,
   and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have
   here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the
   cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three
   villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five
   leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river
   called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,
   eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red
   slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain
   more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does
   not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of
   Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois
   nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of
   that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or
   five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen
   families, except at the principal village, where there were
   three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near
   eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all
   tribes."

      _J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,
      chapter 16._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF
      THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
   Possession taken by the English.

   "The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally
   to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the
   Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council
   held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the
   Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,
   and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren
   will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when
   Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their
   elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,
   had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We
   follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,
   'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees
   begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became
   their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word
   for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask
   how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley
   of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.
   Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear
   arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of
   negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn
   from another source, were occupied by about 110 French
   families, most of which were at Vincennes.
{1695}
   Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of
   an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed
   to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from
   English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her
   territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,
   an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois
   nations agreed that the English should take possession of all
   the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain
   Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down
   the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,
   St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,
   gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th
   of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the
   Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at
   St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,
   while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February
   1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration
   of the British commander, already counted about twice that
   number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western
   side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant
   territory, the government then instituted was the absolute
   rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all
   disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the
   country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 151-152._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.
   Early years of English rule.

   "Just before and during the first years of the English
   domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants
   from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British
   rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the
   wealthier and more influential families, removed with their
   slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or
   down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them
   settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set
   by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,
   which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.
   … At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of
   inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,
   excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post
   Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand
   persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,
   the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with
   the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers
   and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising
   traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be
   seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the
   purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country
   by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained
   essentially French, with whom there was no taste for
   innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American
   had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great
   Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct
   with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be
   introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the
   Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military
   government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and
   liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and
   loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further
   exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On
   the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major
   Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment
   of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after
   exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and
   feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel
   Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at
   Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres
   about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to
   him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early
   in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who
   proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became
   so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that
   he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John
   Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had
   formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived
   from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.
   He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for
   garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of
   Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which
   he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled
   to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey
   to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel
   Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became
   unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,
   including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for
   an official investigation, claiming that he was able to
   justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in
   September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the
   following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,
   became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in
   command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,
   Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province
   of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the
   territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate
   successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not
   positively determined."

      _J. Wallace,
      History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,
      chapter 20._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and
   annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
      CLARK'S CONQUEST.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and
   Polypotamia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
   and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.
   Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

{1696}

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.
   Admission into the Union as a State.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;
      and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

   "In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,
   by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United
   States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their
   country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60
   years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned
   with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock
   Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of
   about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and
   penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came
   only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not
   restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare
   soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at
   Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals
   Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,
   which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and
   desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,
   and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched
   against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General
   Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on
   Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The
   Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;
   and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again
   overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the
   Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water
   while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a
   little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50
   prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and
   children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon
   closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and
   other chiefs."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 4-5._

      _J. B. Patterson, editor,
      History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.
      Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 10._

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.
   The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

   ----------ILLINOIS: End--------

ILLUMINATI, The.

      See ROSICRUCIANS.

ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ILLYRIANS, The.

   "Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more
   numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name
   of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east
   by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of
   Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper
   Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of
   Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north
   and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others
   consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and
   Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at
   the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians
   generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in
   battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom
   of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:
   moreover, they were always ready to sell their military
   service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in
   whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable
   admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian
   kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its
   capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies
   in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing
   period of Grecian history."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

   "The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general
   appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were
   esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to
   be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,
   Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,
   and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more
   properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the
   Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the
   Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.

IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

IMAMS.
THE IMAMATE.

   "When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam
   is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate
   their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,
   and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up
   on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the
   business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law
   himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The
   election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite
   in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical
   soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that
   Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the
   'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.
   But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.
   They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince
   who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in
   Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was
   that the sovereign thus reigning should be a
   member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, ISLAM.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
   Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

IMMORTALS, The.

   A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under
   the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

IMPEACHMENT:
   Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

{1697}

IMPEACHMENT:
   Revival of the right.

   In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on
   the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a
   committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.
   The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that
   of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient
   right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of
   an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which
   had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk
   in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,
   partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly
   through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of
   attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power
   wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to
   inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting
   to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the
   spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of
   impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the
   Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular
   power."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 13._

   ----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

IMPEACHMENTS:
   Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

   President Johnson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)

   Strafford.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

   ----------IMPERATOR: Start--------

IMPERATOR.

   "There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly
   signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably
   have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom
   Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,
   equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with
   the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the
   title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those
   who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much
   valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it
   seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed
   their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of
   battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the
   commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …
   But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in
   a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which
   we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct
   testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who
   tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius
   Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had
   hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but
   as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,
   and in this signification it was transmitted to his
   successors, without, however, suppressing the original import
   of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,
   comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and
   Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the
   name of the individual to whom it is applied."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      ROME: B. C. 45-44.

IMPERATOR:
   Final Signification of the Roman title.

   "When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
   their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
   nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
   proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it
   had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
   extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they
   still distinguished their high station by the appellation of
   Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and
   more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the
   Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name
   of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was
   associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of
   Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was
   expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his
   subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the
   despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing
   it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence
   by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more
   feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of
   'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but
   was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

   ----------IMPERATOR: End--------

IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

      See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.

IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

      See INDICTIONS.

IMPERIUM, The.

   "The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman
   Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but
   also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the
   imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by
   virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his
   fellow-citizens."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

IMPORTANTS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

INCUNABULA.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

INDEPENDENCE, MO.,
   Confederate capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

   The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,
   adopted July 4, 1776.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

INDEPENDENCE HALL.
   The Liberty Bell.

   The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at
   Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American
   Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental
   Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,
   which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully
   preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,
   except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special
   occasion opens its doors to the public.
{1698}
   Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except
   two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of
   which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by
   Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration
   of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,
   where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four
   feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the
   heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends
   from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names
   of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore
   the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …
   The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for
   the State House was imported from England. On the first
   trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was
   recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the
   direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the
   Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in
   English America,' which now hangs in the old State House
   steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its
   crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental
   Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:
   'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the
   inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell
   the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed
   liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result
   was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of
   that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the
   land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the
   joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume I, chapters 15 and 17._

INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

   ----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS:
   Their origin and opinions.

   "The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing
   courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it
   was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that
   the disposition was manifested among them to break away from
   the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.
   And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the
   more sober part remained in the church. The communities of
   persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in
   London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those
   had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil
   Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or
   Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first
   they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a
   divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer
   of the duty of separation."

      _J. Hunter,
      The Founders of New Plymouth,
      pages 12-13._

   "The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief
   that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church
   was that of the voluntary association of believers into local
   congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and
   managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring
   congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly
   conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to
   profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,
   this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between
   neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,
   until the true independency of each voluntary society of
   Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in
   Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a
   district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or
   Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the
   primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I
   believe, though with varieties of expression, English
   Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original
   warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the
   practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the
   theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new
   process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,
   and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate
   beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
   propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert
   Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a
   preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished
   from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as
   they were called, had persisted in their course, through
   execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the
   pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans
   disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable
   numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and
   throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them
   in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting
   from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
   elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,
   the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London
   Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more
   ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in
   general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …
   Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,
   then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His
   feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for
   those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the
   most, a very small number of very silly and base people here
   and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to
   God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and
   worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon
   was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.
   Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast
   out."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2._

   "The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of
   those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the
   heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that
   a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,
   relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who
   had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches
   came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and
   denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,
   blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.
{1699}
   To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and
   studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and
   with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes
   called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to
   charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,
   and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to
   the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on
   the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or
   Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from
   house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their
   courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period
   of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full
   vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of
   the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New
   England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred
   to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had
   made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Neal,
      History of the Puritans,
      volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7._

      _L. Bacon,
      Genesis of the New England Churches._

      _B. Hanbury,
      Historical Memorials of the Independents,
      volume 1._

      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 3._

      _H. M. Dexter,
      The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,
      lectures 1-5._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:
      IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
   The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

   "The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from
   becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That
   honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country
   gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."
   After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan
   divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,
   nonconformity began to assume among the churches more
   decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict
   was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had
   not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.
   Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a
   company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service
   in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this
   independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully
   aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was
   then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at
   Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare
   sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a
   broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the
   Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike
   bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the
   comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in
   points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing
   that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth
   colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of
   Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding
   influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another
   important member of the Scrooby congregation was William
   Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a
   lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of
   intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of
   Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of
   his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure
   and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of
   the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.
   It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent
   threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.
   Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered
   so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began
   to think of following the example of former heretics and
   escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the
   autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in
   accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to
   find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had
   preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,
   that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:
   This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise
   counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting
   divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as
   the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless
   task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the
   Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the
   Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various
   occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more
   than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,
   however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new
   home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that
   this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete
   toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they
   come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might
   have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot
   refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.
   But they had come as an organized community, and absorption
   into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished
   to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep
   up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they
   might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The
   spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of
   self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which
   could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not
   been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of
   Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late
   in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon
   European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.
   The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of
   America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed
   the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of
   disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length
   been founded in Virginia."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15._

      _G. Sumner,
      Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,
      volume 9)._

      _A. Steele,
      Life and Time of Brewster,
      chapters 8-14._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

{1700}

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.
   Preparations for the exodus to New England.

   "'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have
   them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn
   love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led
   them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of
   England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with
   the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'
   hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to
   live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent
   of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in
   1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven
   articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be
   submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These
   articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in
   religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the
   theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of
   persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian
   sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their
   concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire
   of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and
   all civil authority derived from him, including the civil
   authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done
   to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,
   active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or
   passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical
   bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …
   The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,
   so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,
   through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious
   gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been
   taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the
   multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the
   pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands
   of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers
   of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the
   Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,
   to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they
   encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the
   negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the
   Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and
   nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than
   an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,
   being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If
   there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they
   communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as
   the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall
   or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'
   Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company
   for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who
   from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his
   presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the
   company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which
   being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a
   large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed
   to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was
   never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after
   investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to
   execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for
   aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the
   number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to
   emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a
   new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the
   states general. The 'West India company was willing to
   transport them without charge, and to furnish them with
   cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general
   to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence
   from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict
   with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The
   members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the
   Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now
   trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.
   The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English
   merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a
   partnership between their employers and men of business in
   London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital
   of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be
   reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,
   and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be
   divided among the share-holders according to their respective
   interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive
   for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his
   services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to
   the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not
   interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And
   now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and
   in themselves, made ready for their departure."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.
   The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.
   In the English Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);
      1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

   ----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

   ----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA.
   The name.

   "To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is
   marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and
   the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not
   always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this
   country. To them for a long time the word India was for
   practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of
   the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they
   refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some
   information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none
   about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so
   natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole
   region. For there is a very marked difference between the
   northern and southern parts of it.
{1701}
   The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented
   Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the
   great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.
   Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this
   northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races
   and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not
   a political name, but only a geographical expression like
   Europe or Africa."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      The Expansion of England,
      pages 221-222._

   "The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has
   been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.
   … The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the
   northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the
   'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …
   The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may
   be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from
   having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the
   river.'"

      _E. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      page 1._

   "Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of
   the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since
   it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the
   Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river
   Sindus, instead of Indus."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1, note._

INDIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   "Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling
   for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had
   lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who
   called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,
   speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful
   gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.
   The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the
   land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the
   mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The
   comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now
   nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung
   chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present
   Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early
   tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The
   Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided
   themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for
   'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan
   poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000
   years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the
   Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the
   black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own
   'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter
   the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed
   features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.
   One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or
   flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'
   gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been
   savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the
   Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'
   The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and
   some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by
   non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive
   peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the
   Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in
   the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in
   hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which
   we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of
   culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the
   isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of
   Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as
   dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands
   in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the
   midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals
   with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by
   plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,
   in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.
   The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,
   mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.
   Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but
   wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They
   shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and
   seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,
   small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a
   higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence
   over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great
   stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient
   non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of
   South-Western India, still keep up the old system of
   polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several
   husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,
   but to his sister's children. This system also appears among
   the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of
   India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a
   large part of the population. In certain localities they
   amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important
   race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the
   wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the
   chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the
   approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the
   Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in
   number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'
   Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few
   strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves
   before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of
   India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled
   by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam
   hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by
   any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the
   number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the
   way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,
   undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,
   therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as
   that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years
   ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities
   of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder
   ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and
   I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of
   them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their
   home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in
   Lower Bengal.
{1702}
   They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of
   the plains, and number about a million. Although still
   clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have
   learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful
   husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is
   supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the
   village. … Until near the end of the last century, the
   Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under
   British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …
   The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about
   100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges
   which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is
   purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the
   father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,
   but live in his house with their wives and children, and all
   share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of
   the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.
   … The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way
   between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan
   tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence
   came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in
   the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still
   scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?
   Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us
   little. But from their languages we find that they belong to
   three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered
   India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of
   the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have
   entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly
   along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland
   which covers the southern half of India. Third, the
   Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their
   way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now
   inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far
   down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a
   rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,
   loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while
   even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into
   clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the
   troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and
   some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us
   Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the
   Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian
   army, and lately covered themselves with honour in
   Afghanistan."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      Races of Mankind,
      volume 4, chapter 1._

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      TURANIAN RACES.

INDIA:
   The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.
   The hymns and prayers of their religion.
   Vedism.
   Brahmanism.
   Hinduism

   "The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the
   west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of
   the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the
   eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among
   them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks
   Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection
   with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in
   very close connection with the language of the monuments of
   Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The
   religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit
   striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable
   number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and
   customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not
   always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.
   Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the
   borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.
   Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive
   settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the
   Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas
   denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha
   (Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already
   established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it
   is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights
   of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five
   tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from
   the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures
   and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which
   separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river
   which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped
   the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,
   Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the
   Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the
   land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The
   inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.
   These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products
   of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of
   the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under
   names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must
   have been settled there for centuries previously. For this
   reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further
   on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of
   the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time
   when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the
   Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the
   dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by
   the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,
   whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement
   there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a
   collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,
   'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or
   collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the
   priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these
   families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain
   with exactness the region in which the greater number of these
   poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:
   the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the
   Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself
   and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the
   east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The
   seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the
   seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has
   already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta
   sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the
   Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,
   we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of
   Iran.
{1703}
   As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …
   and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at
   all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the
   songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to
   the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to
   move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather
   from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were
   not one civic community. They were governed by a number of
   princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,
   others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes
   combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but
   against each other."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4)._

   "When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in
   the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the
   15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.
   It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in
   operation around them for production, destruction, and
   reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more
   distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,
   and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as
   something more than radiant beings, and something more than
   powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,
   guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in
   formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).
   These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit
   language, at different times—perhaps during several
   centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light
   and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were
   afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal
   saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been
   directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,
   and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal
   word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or
   hymns were arranged in three principal collections or
   continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called
   the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,
   arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first
   bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.
   … Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian
   branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of
   Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in
   one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,
   when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);
   when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā
   (masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,
   was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a
   philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine
   was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It
   was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a
   confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …
   Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in
   this—that it takes little account of the primordial,
   impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal
   manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma
   and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.
   Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism
   is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily
   there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …
   Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and
   superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and
   Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,
   and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified
   by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering
   races, such as Islam and Christianity."

      _M. Williams,
      Religious Thought and Life in India,
      part 1, chapter 1, and introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Mitra,
      Indo-Aryans._

      _F. Max Müller,
      History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature._

      _F. Max Müller, editor,
      Sacred Books of the East,
      volume. 1, and others._

      _A. Barth,
      Religions of India._

      _Rig-Veda Sanhita,
      translated by H. H. Wilson._

      See, also,
      ARYANS.

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.
   Invasion of Darius.

      See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.
   Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.
   Expulsion of the Greeks.
   Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

   "The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of
   India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed
   since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha
   was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and
   Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the
   banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was
   leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the
   river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of
   the Punjab.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

   … The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions
   westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and
   then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and
   march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,
   crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to
   pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and
   Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or
   Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.
   … After crossing the Indus, there were at least three
   kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,
   namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;
   that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and
   that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.
   … When Alexander had fully established his authority in
   Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted
   some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having
   submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,
   and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite
   bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with
   chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on
   the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient
   story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the
   admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled
   to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.
   … The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of
   Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question
   between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new
   communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian
   Ocean.
{1704}
   He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the
   northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he
   founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of
   the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,
   Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that
   river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at
   his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder
   Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he
   was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.
   "But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their
   campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead
   them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of
   necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they
   were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with
   his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a
   portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army
   marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost
   due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he
   reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the
   phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched
   through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted
   the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the
   same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the
   rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about
   the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as
   his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of
   mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander
   was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the
   news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the
   mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain
   by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately
   despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry
   on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could
   appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems
   to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.
   323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can
   scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took
   advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was
   ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians
   by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,
   and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to
   have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute
   his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of
   Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the
   Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole
   of Hindustan and the Punjab."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      Arrian,
      _Anabasis of Alexander
      (translated by Chinnock),
      books 4-6._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Alexander,
      chapters 38-43._

INDIA: B. C. 312
   Chandragupta and Asoka.
   The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

   "The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the
   era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya
   dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra
   (Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),
   extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a
   determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos
   Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about
   312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his
   kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by
   Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an
   alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman
   Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this
   circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian
   manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent
   observer who was not a native, and this narrative of
   Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which
   we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism
   existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth
   century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King
   Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in
   public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any
   rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did
   for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an
   impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.
   Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith
   of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great
   portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical
   with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of
   their history are similar. He is probably the same as King
   Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'
   or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are
   scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the
   west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.
   What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it
   arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common
   with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with
   each other, yet they are very different from each other.
   Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all
   theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.
   Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but
   rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without
   real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an
   epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one
   who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all
   existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or
   'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.
   The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a
   series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the
   universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at
   the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana
   being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being
   the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the
   Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name
   of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is
   said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi
   tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),
   at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to
   have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon
   afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of
   Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are
   equal.
{1705}
   … We have five marked features of Buddhism:

   1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

   2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

   3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

   4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,
   and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all
   action;

   5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute
   extinction of all being.

   There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy
   of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The
   only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A
   Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on
   the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining
   Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have
   blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each
   had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted
   something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism
   was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct
   persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of
   Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.
   Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found
   Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in
   the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's
   doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,
   and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon
   after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In
   other parts of India there was probably a period of
   Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;
   but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back
   into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who
   met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an
   incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the
   Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are
   probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are
   found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially
   on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it
   may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has
   disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),
   and that it has not done so without having largely contributed
   towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the
   present day."

      _M. Williams,
      Hinduism,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),
      Buddhism._

      _H. Oldenburg,
      Buddha._

      _P. Bigandet,
      Life and Legend of Gaudama._

      _A. Lillie,
      Buddha and the Early Buddhists._

      _W. W. Rockhill,
      The Life of the Buddha._

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
   Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

   "Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in
   uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,
   the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.
   The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;
   worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion
   that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the
   caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of
   its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became
   disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by
   land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the
   state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia
   began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the
   Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the
   Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no
   wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the
   Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the
   Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were
   spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of
   Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had
   perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.
   Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of
   Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the
   Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was
   Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and
   popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once
   ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan
   was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled
   from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.
   D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired
   his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the
   succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the
   Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as
   Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated
   Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to
   Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a
   reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,
   inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their
   idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,
   Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his
   enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at
   Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one
   hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and
   Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe
   of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the
   Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,
   but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in
   a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.
   D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.
   Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had
   lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the
   invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a
   narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers
   would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated
   Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;
   and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and
   Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he
   repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He
   was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of
   Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and
   ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his
   acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din
   Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time
   been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first
   undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and
   temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the
   materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for
   the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin
   Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.
{1706}
   But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the
   difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so
   remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'
   accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.
   Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate
   Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …
   Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now
   known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul
   leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.
   The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful
   campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power
   was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern
   Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death
   of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The
   Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;
   the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a
   Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of
   these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at
   Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as
   Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named
   Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation
   of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.
   … Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became
   Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to
   obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of
   which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that
   Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later
   Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some
   of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable
   barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,
   under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

   They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and
   occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among
   the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to
   settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh
   and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the
   Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their
   capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests
   south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he
   turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was
   routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or
   was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior
   (in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus
   under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his
   tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he
   demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the
   following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed
   to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after
   a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest
   son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died
   before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,
   Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the
   Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was
   besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence
   against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm
   and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was
   a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men
   in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned
   among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who
   penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by
   Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated
   Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched
   against them and met with a partial success. This turned into
   evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was
   organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his
   uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June
   1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal
   exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of
   the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire
   in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his
   grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined
   to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern
   and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a
   girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He
   gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be
   murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at
   Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death
   (1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

      _H. G. Keene,
      Sketch of the History of Hindustan,
      book 1, chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, part 1, chapter 2._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindustan
      (from the Persian of Ferishta),
      volume 1._

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.
   From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

   "In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was
   assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under
   the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and
   made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named
   Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently
   acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din
   was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to
   conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of
   Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very
   troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had
   enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were
   turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.
   Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried
   to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.
   Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives
   and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first
   Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan
   and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to
   invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry
   off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of
   raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was
   followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have
   been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din
   had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.
   Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the
   revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.
   The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed
   character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,
   and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his
   Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated
   themselves on Korans.
{1707}
   The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the
   end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor
   of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the
   throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.
   The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably
   regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at
   Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old
   Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad
   is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when
   the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died
   in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in
   history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but
   blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent
   his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy
   which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the
   Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them
   to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury
   was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by
   Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but
   only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed
   rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a
   separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan
   army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan
   of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against
   him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The
   history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad
   Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.
   He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the
   empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the
   subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed
   temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting
   Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of
   Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see
   TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;
   they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities
   may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that
   Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers
   to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In
   1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan
   fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.
   At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,
   invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 6. chapters 2-3._

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.
   Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

      See TIMOUR.

[Image: Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century,
and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire.]

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.
   The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.
   The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

   "The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority
   already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for
   twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan
   Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family
   which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in
   history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern
   India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a
   powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to
   endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The
   Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the
   rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed
   provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,
   in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by
   the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles
   of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.
   Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to
   the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …
   Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by
   Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each
   had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as
   far eastward as the country immediately to the north of
   Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded
   on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole
   authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar
   Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he
   subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,
   and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of
   Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated
   under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;
   the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part
   of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,
   the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of
   Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in
   calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant
   of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which
   he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had
   made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),
   establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the
   Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in
   1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second
   invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth
   occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth
   expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great
   battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the
   24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of
   Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra
   were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of
   Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of
   Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal
   (synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great
   Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in
   1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in
   the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,
   Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond
   of union or of common interest, except that which had been
   concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal
   dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,
   had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Akbar,
      chapters 4-5._

{1708}

   Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul
   and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.
   Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and
   at the same time was deprived of the country from which his
   father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early
   Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new
   Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the
   Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of
   India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of
   Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his
   famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).
   Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the
   rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,
   under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the
   Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.
   Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his
   thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate
   battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the
   Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and
   Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again
   for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the
   Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for
   two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.
   … His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to
   1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own
   Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a
   small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the
   Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a
   reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty
   kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,
   in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by
   Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan
   population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced
   these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many
   of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their
   independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence
   upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by
   force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the
   Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the
   support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,
   and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against
   the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan
   faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal
   Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar
   subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious
   annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not
   only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,
   he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into
   Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or
   viceroy, with full civil and military control."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 10._

   "I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did
   for the improvement of the country and the people of
   Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or
   rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir
   Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of
   land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,
   by dividing it into three classes, according to the
   productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third
   of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be
   paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in
   money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,
   and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding
   years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate
   was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to
   pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the
   collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well
   calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,
   they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has
   been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no
   principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to
   the rural population, by opening paths by which it might
   spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions
   within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were
   liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly
   administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal
   punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,
   except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were
   considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well
   organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he
   suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery
   prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the
   burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and
   uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical
   lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was
   derived rather from the personal character of the man than
   from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not
   to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be
   computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to
   be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of
   what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under
   the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up
   the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to
   perfect its internal economy."

      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Company,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN: 3
      _W. Erskine,
      History of India under Baber and Humayun._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
      volume 2._

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.
   Portuguese trade and settlements.

   In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached
   Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first
   European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape
   of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a
   hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next
   voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the
   following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to
   establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'
   (or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This
   factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,
   chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted
   in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.
   Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received
   with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the
   country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin
   and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar
   pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native
   allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.
{1709}
   They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504
   large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded
   Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and
   fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India
   generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly
   set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to
   maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of
   Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined
   these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their
   ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from
   Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,
   and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort
   Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for
   a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval
   victory which once and for all firmly established the
   Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's
   rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession
   of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian
   dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,
   together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city
   of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The
   next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty
   in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists
   practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,
   from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years
   after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was
   virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any
   rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at
   the climax of their power in the east. The way in which
   Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of
   the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very
   often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers
   in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of
   course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as
   direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but
   even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate
   commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,
   China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was
   reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a
   great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that
   the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The
   merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,
   bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This
   voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the
   imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of
   accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by
   the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made
   by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese
   merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade
   with other European countries in the goods they had brought
   back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,
   English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The
   colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly
   acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether
   hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys
   and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their
   whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and
   defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,
   hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east
   had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal
   was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The
   Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and
   engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only
   of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese
   fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very
   eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept
   to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations
   remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      volume 3, books 2-5._

      _Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque
      (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

      _E. Grey,
      Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle
      (Hakluyt Society Publications)._

      _H. M. Stephens,
      Albuquerque._

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
   Beginnings of English trade.
   The chartering of the English East India Company.
   Its early footholds in Hindostan.
   The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.
   The three Presidencies.

   "For some time it appears to have been thought by other
   European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round
   Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its
   navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal
   by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed
   establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,
   aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an
   Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum
   was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a
   petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen
   Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh
   entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the
   boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed
   at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the
   title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London
   trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained
   the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the
   monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the
   direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in
   Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of
   the new Company was not only renewed but rendered
   perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any
   national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these
   exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease
   and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the
   new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of
   four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in
   bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,
   cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of
   smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint
   Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in
   bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their
   capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100
   per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the
   decline of every other branch of trade and industry.
{1710}
   But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a
   new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges
   but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,
   to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being
   Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as
   prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well
   be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this
   last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period
   of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that
   of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its
   object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and
   supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said
   that the competition of these two Companies with the private
   traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An
   Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to
   their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings
   till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great
   Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and
   separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India
   for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were
   fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the
   grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth
   of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were
   fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal
   sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims
   were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,
   from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best
   part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants
   were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at
   Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did
   these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the
   Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and
   that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the
   'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and
   confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and
   nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final
   result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam
   and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer
   settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into
   importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a
   Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining
   the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they
   proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …
   In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About
   twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to
   Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay
   were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's
   dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to
   evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was
   not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was
   compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to
   cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to
   the East India Company, and became one of their principal
   stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and
   richness of that province, a proverb was already current among
   the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and
   not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the
   English had established their factories at or near the town of
   Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the
   Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of
   some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul
   junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found
   it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down
   the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty
   hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of
   India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of
   these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total
   expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he
   was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,
   and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this
   commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have
   resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new
   station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,
   on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it
   stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its
   defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter
   there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of
   Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the
   same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast
   of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by
   purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened
   with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras
   for its government. Thus then before the accession of the
   House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,
   Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into
   Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as
   at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each
   independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and
   a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of
   Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,
   and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly
   native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were
   either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters
   from other services in India. Among these the descendants of
   the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called
   Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of
   turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were
   known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian
   word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English
   scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 39 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 1 (volume 1)._

      _P. Anderson,
      The English in Western India,
      chapters 1-10._

      _H. Stevens, editor.,
      Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:
      Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603._

      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Company,
      chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.
   Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
   Jahangir and Nur Mahal.
   Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.
   Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

   "Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year
   of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of
   Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he
   reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne,
   he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father
   gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the
   throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and
   took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her,
   and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She
   was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur
   Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in
   1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe,
   arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere,
   where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made
   him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful
   English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He
   received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him
   marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a
   firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The
   later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family
   intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent
   part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her
   son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest
   living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into
   retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house
   of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of
   the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects
   the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan
   dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the
   Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and
   successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to
   perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other
   emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he
   erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. …
   This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his
   favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which
   name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption],
   'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had
   attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th),
   he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his
   debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a
   civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the
   throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja,
   Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict
   Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of
   the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the
   last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped
   to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor,
   who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra,
   with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be
   proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah
   Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial
   reconciliation took place between him and his son, who,
   however, did not release him from his confinement."

      _J. Samuelson,
      India, Past and Present,
      part 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 4, chapters 5-7._

      Sir T. Roe,
      Journal of Embassy
      (Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

      _M. Elphinstone,
      History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,
      book 10._

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
   The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.
   The Mahratta empire.
   Invasion of Nadir Shah.
   Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

   "Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in
   destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year
   1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to
   attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing
   more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of
   the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of
   Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body
   only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the
   lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the
   constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the
   head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of
   them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a
   conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur
   to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this
   vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture
   of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the
   standard of revolt against that government, introduced a
   spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and
   may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In
   1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul
   territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a
   regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough
   to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle.
   This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul
   empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the
   chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted
   by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to
   madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in
   the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on
   infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of
   his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at
   length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the
   Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western
   portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and
   continued in a state of hostility more or less active during
   the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the
   Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and
   Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of
   regular government from that distracted portion of the
   country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the
   adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died,
   and successors of less talent filled the throne of the
   robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the
   progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the
   natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its
   military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat.
   Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns;
   … and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old
   age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th
   of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the
   next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than
   five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being
   distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident
   indications of the gradual decline of the empire.
{1712}
   During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo
   dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation
   of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into
   warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union
   into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706
   the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for
   their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in
   1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely
   consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so
   celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of
   the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of
   Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia,
   which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more
   remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose
   descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the
   title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad]
   of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by
   internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the
   Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had
   taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon
   the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing
   Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of
   conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and
   Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into
   Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of
   Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. …
   The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where
   Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the
   populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants
   to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000
   to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his
   invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the
   inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were
   suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned
   to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the
   country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and
   plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of
   great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne
   of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with
   diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being
   spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

      _Tavernier's Travels,
      translated and edited by V. Ball,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in
   1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which
   might be expected."

      _Leitch Ritchie,
      History of the Indian Empire,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the
   Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more
   than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which
   the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging
   to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he
   founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The
   Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province]
   erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the
   decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and
   quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the
   royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial
   Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still
   bears."

      _H. G. Keene,
      Madhava Rao Sindhia,
      chapter 1._

   "The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own
   natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among
   revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent
   tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of
   mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless
   multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and
   clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed
   likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the
   assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able
   to discharge the most elementary functions of government in
   the preservation of life and property. In short, the people
   were scattered without a leader or protector; while the
   political system under which they had long lived was
   disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this
   period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English
   first appeared upon the political arena in India."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Rise of the British Dominion in India,
      chapter 4, sections 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Aurangzib,
      chapters 9-12._

      _A. Dow,
      History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,
      volume 3._

      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1._

      _C. R. Markham,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 12._

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
   Commercial undertakings of the French.
   Their settlement at Pondicherry.

   "Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French]
   earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company,
   chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which
   there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were
   two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601.
   These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and
   their commander did not return to France for ten years.
   Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of
   which the most that can be said is that they met with no great
   disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and
   Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely
   failed. The first operations of the French East India Company
   were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large
   commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for
   the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the
   officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the
   company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a
   colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was
   frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the
   French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the
   Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought
   refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had
   purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693,
   Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the
   fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace
   of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the
   French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect
   common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and
   discretion of its governors than to the home government. M.
   Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from
   ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of
   money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King
   of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also
   procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the
   other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 3, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapters 1-3._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

{1713}

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
   Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.
   Clive against Dupleix.
   The founding of British empire.

   "England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as
   also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to
   realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken
   out [1743] between France and England.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

   Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East
   India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in
   the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably
   repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton,
   the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate,
   after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral,
   Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving
   Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements,
   defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that
   series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every
   discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent
   mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India
   for more than the next half century, only to meet on their
   return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais,
   who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of
   Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined
   a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he
   entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile
   broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the
   city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to
   surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were
   placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a
   moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he
   denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded
   the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through
   Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter
   place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains
   came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and
   stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of
   Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost
   several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9).
   News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a
   very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being
   restored, with fortifications much improved. The English
   fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to
   their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of
   interfering in the internal politics of the country.
   Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined
   the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the
   so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take
   Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the
   first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the
   natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a
   valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had
   appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the
   East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton,
   born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a
   naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had
   been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had
   twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras,
   disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the
   capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one,
   and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major
   Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      lecture 7._

   "Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves
   to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles
   south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the
   military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him.
   … At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native
   chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably.
   They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival
   claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of
   the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of
   the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any
   more than in the conception, of this first little war. We
   obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation
   for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and
   ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime
   providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the
   Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The
   greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy
   of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to
   claim both his throne and the richest province under his
   rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the
   French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the
   extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This
   aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his
   son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the
   last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at
   Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be
   supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the
   arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was
   actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape
   Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000
   of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry
   alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the
   midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of
   dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the
   haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but
   Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the
   Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was
   greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column
   in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions
   in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of
   the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called
   his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native
   races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was
   supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land.
   Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the
   English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary,
   with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than
   a soldier.
{1714}
   He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme
   alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next
   step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make
   their position worse; and they caught at every chance of
   making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital
   of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the
   besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The
   force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers,
   commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men,
   only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was
   against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but
   Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more
   difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it
   was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired
   half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their
   numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four
   officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a
   hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege.
   … A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came
   round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at
   headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his
   absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did
   much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers
   were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument,
   and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the
   native impression of the respective destinies of the French
   and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military
   incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting
   as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved,
   and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put
   to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time
   longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his
   difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. …
   He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the
   British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he
   returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind
   him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the
   way."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of British Rule in India,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapters 3-6._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Founders of the Indian Empire: Lord Clive,
      chapters 1-6._

      _Colonel Sir C. Wilson,
      Lord Clive,
      chapters 2-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Duranee power in Afghanistan.
   Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas.
   Great defeat of the latter at Panniput.
   Fall of the shattered Moghul empire.
   The state of things which invited British conquest.

   On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his
   Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee,
   who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become
   one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed
   Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops
   that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several
   commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he
   drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a
   convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This
   enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his
   countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and
   took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being
   corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names
   to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar
   which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul …
   and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun."
   Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747,
   invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with
   sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell
   back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the
   Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he
   marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received
   him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague
   breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own
   country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan;
   disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief …
   incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the
   Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over
   their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta
   generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who
   had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in
   driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more
   agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they
   advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble
   resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both
   Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now
   about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the
   Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his
   two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he
   was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning
   under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their
   succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees
   hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were
   distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their
   army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly
   destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the
   slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of
   Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the
   neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that
   Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest,
   with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all
   put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee
   Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and
   disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A
   vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to
   gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the
   nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was
   sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the
   other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they
   marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took
   possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing
   away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace;
   proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah
   Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi,
   Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own
   vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his
   Vizir.
{1715}
   Impatient at intelligence of these and some other
   transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed
   impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and
   the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the
   Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near
   Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with
   parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies,
   contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he
   tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their
   way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other
   chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict.
   Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the
   Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their
   convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A
   battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee
   restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a
   considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them
   with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using
   their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action;
   confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage
   ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand
   men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from
   the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the
   people of the country, who had suffered from their
   depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the
   most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of
   any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to
   Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty
   victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized
   Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and
   entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of
   affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched
   back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760
   [1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be
   justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy
   Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a
   life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of
   English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of
   power to consider himself for one moment as master of the
   throne."

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   "The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great
   historical events, and there is no event to which they have
   been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of
   India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it
   is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could
   have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in
   India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul
   Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody,
   and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind
   or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising
   that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a
   mercenary force should be able to compete with other
   adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its
   competitors by bringing into the field English military
   science and generalship, especially when it was backed over
   and over again by the whole power and credit of England and
   directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the
   strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who
   happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire
   fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh
   and rose to supreme power there."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      The Expansion of England,
      course 2, lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 2, chapters 2-5._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of Afghanistan,
      chapter 8._

      _H. G. Keene,
      Madhava Rao Sindhia,
      chapter 2._

INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.
   Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah.
   The tragedy of the Black Hole.
   Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

   Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an
   election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was
   unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he
   re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor
   of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel
   in the British army, received from the king, and returned to
   India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he
   received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his
   bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject
   to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part
   of India possessed such natural advantages both for
   agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial
   companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal.
   The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore
   on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held
   Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort
   William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A
   row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the
   East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the
   neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town,
   where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their
   abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee
   contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A
   jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the
   site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now
   daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta.
   For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English,
   like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and
   they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise
   a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province
   of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been
   governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan,
   and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become
   virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty
   descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age,
   who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah
   Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and
   his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very
   exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by
   plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was
   incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they
   been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him
   for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal
   was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some
   other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found.
{1716}
   The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to
   fortify their settlement without special permission from the
   Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken
   refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such
   grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army
   against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras
   had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers.
   Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified
   and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was
   taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great
   numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors.
   The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall
   of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank
   among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness
   talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the
   smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to
   spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed
   that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity,
   memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was
   followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the
   guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night
   in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful
   name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor,
   that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and
   narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes
   were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the
   season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered
   tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the
   constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146.
   When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that
   the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on
   account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they
   laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon
   discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated;
   but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who
   hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point
   of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon
   them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which
   Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped
   his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the
   horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that
   night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door.
   Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of
   mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was
   that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that
   the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody
   woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They
   trampled each other down, fought for the places at the
   windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel
   mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed,
   blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The
   gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted
   with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At
   length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The
   day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted
   the door to be opened. But it was some time before the
   soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on
   each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate
   had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a
   passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their
   own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of
   the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies,
   123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered
   up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was
   placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah
   Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal
   sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most
   pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William,
   forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed
   that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should
   thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of
   God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached
   Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The
   cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within
   forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was
   determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley,
   and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The
   naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine
   hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and
   1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a
   Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress
   Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to
   make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal
   till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at
   Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of
   foreign countries that he often used to say that there were
   not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred
   to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his
   dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their
   military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues
   fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to
   resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he
   received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley.
   He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at
   Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had
   commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took
   Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered
   Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already
   disposed to make some concessions to the English, was
   confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their
   power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs
   of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory,
   and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled.
   Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was
   something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah
   Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the
   Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive
   consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things
   should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could
   have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in
   the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier
   carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the
   plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a
   statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as
   subordinate to his political designs."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Lord Clive (Essays)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      Life of Lord Clive,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

      _H. E. Busteed,
      Echoes from Old Calcutta,
      chapter 1._

{1717}

INDIA: A. D. 1757.
   A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah.
   His overthrow at the battle of Plassey.
   The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund.
   Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

   The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had
   been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who
   "thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the
   rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a
   doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement,
   which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were
   overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was
   now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the
   friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the
   natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit,
   and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most
   unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of
   Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a
   conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general,
   Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth
   and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it
   had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty
   between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier,
   Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that
   treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his
   service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share
   of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for
   themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should
   go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure
   Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his
   demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper,
   a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to
   Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been
   properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as
   well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier.
   Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On
   the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the
   House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against
   him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that
   the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that
   admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have
   thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a
   conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had
   sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral
   Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the
   perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished
   examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory.
   Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has,
   for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true
   policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left
   Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah
   Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come
   forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century
   ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their
   2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to
   encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with
   all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone
   appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight
   field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns.
   Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained
   elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or
   up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise
   to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It
   was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander.
   Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native
   force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve
   officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven
   voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each
   side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to
   fight, without which departure from the opinion of the
   majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have
   been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little
   army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one
   o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the
   mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of
   the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed
   with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the
   mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched
   through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours.
   The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The
   small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief
   Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the
   Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift
   camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to
   pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the
   conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider
   himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the
   protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from
   his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and
   fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off
   recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him
   back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer
   Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy.
   That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the
   orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as
   himself."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 6, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Founders of the Indian Empire: Clive,
      chapters 8-10._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Lord Clive (Rulers of India)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 3._

      _E. Thornton,
      History of British Empire in India,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
   Clive's Administration in Bengal.
   Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh.
   English Supremacy established.

   "The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an
   anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was
   at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the
   beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate
   results of the victory were comparatively small, and several
   years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would
   admit the superiority of the British arms.
{1718}
   For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive,
   again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon
   the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a
   patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums
   were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. …
   At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the
   zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of
   country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the
   Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square
   miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari
   rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents,
   with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D.
   1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the
   land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was
   granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the
   Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his
   own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the
   property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in
   1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a
   new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to
   Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the
   Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the
   Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's
   settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On
   the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as
   the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and
   Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was
   advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the
   south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was
   overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive
   exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was
   anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested
   Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army
   of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army
   dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive
   despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which
   recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently
   established British influence throughout the Northern Circars,
   and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch,
   the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to
   the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and
   their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on
   sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had
   left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the
   tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from
   the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was
   found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the
   English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his
   son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides
   private donations, the English received a grant of the three
   Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to
   yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim
   soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of
   independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority
   was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at
   Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr.
   Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of
   Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the
   controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired
   upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms
   [1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at
   Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various
   parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans,
   were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir
   Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were
   defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and
   at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir
   of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a
   prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his
   father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of
   Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the
   English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in
   the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This
   was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who
   ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old
   Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive
   battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the
   conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to
   the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice
   found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of
   Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of
   Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as
   Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand
   out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although
   not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a
   grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify
   the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and
   guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither
   respect were his plans carried out by his immediate
   successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from
   this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy
   had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced
   rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in
   person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back
   to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million
   sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of
   Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were
   handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to
   the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal,
   Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of
   the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at
   Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of
   £600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the
   Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual
   system of government, by which the English received all the
   revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the
   criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In
   Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was
   nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained
   for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord
   Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767.
{1719}
   Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in
   1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the
   terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have
   swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of
   government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a
   failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company,
   distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for
   knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the
   Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a
   predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court
   had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon
   themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire
   care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of
   this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to
   Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now
   familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue
   collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the
   territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal.
   Hastings may be said to have created a British administration
   for that Empire."

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India)
      volume 4, pages 389-394._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M, Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 4-6._

      _Sir C. Wilson,
      Lord Clive,
      chapters 7-9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 7._

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
   Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.
   The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

   "In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an
   entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry.
   It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally,
   who had been appointed Governor-General of the French
   possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at
   Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St.
   David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the
   French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught
   cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally
   overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort
   St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary
   to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to
   help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis
   de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern
   Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which
   had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of
   the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of
   seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The
   departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to
   the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the
   French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an
   English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of
   Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated
   the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9],
   and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast
   which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was
   actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege
   of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the
   destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march
   northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from
   Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December,
   1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began
   the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which
   commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were
   enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At
   last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived
   at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to
   raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst
   the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was
   received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The
   career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely
   from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of
   hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan,
   Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the
   departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to
   the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and
   he despaired of obtaining further help from the French.
   Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and
   the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured
   factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a
   fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern
   Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic
   affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam
   Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in
   confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as
   ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in
   despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote
   at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up
   negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in
   Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At
   the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry.
   Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and
   fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January,
   1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the
   town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few
   weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the
   strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the
   Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally
   to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the
   French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris.
   … In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to
   immediate execution."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 3, chapter 2._

   "The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side
   were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the
   decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and
   decisive blow to French domination in India."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the French in India,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
   The first war with Hyder Ali.

   "At this period, the main point of interest changes from the
   Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the
   English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had
   now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and
   daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in
   India—Hyder Ali.
{1720}
   He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'
   or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no
   less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted
   to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a
   partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and
   commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position
   he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …
   Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely
   the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of
   Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a
   new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By
   various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller
   princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to
   the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore
   especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he
   applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline
   his troops according to the European models. The English at
   Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully
   appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767
   engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy
   against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as
   that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the
   arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought
   off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was
   only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert
   with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but
   soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off
   his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near
   Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him
   no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the
   forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably
   with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,
   as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at
   Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of
   peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus
   proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of
   Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the
   southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of
   the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of
   Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often
   underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of
   1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to
   extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he
   drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of
   Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder
   himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of
   that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in
   their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder
   and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever
   might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms
   were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual
   restoration of conquests should take place, and that the
   contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all
   defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no
   means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed
   himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He
   did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power
   and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the
   Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no
   great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost
   none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,
   they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of
   money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government
   at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of
   such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in
   goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the
   very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had
   begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by
   Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their
   half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its
   reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of
   1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 67._

      ALSO IN:
      _Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
      History of Hydur Naik,
      chapters 1-17._

      _L. B. Bowring,
      Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
      chapter 8._

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Climax of English misrule.
   Break-down of the East India Company's government.
   The Indian Act of Lord North.

   "In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of
   the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and
   it was estimated that more than a third part of its
   inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in
   spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy
   of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at
   home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as
   permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all
   this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors
   were obliged to confess that the sum required for the
   necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to
   the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the
   Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform
   him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from
   the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system
   of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The
   division between the Directors and a large part of the
   proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in
   England and those in India, the private and selfish interests
   of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the
   continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a
   policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation
   of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally
   weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was
   rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great
   country by a commercial company was radically and incurably
   false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772,
   at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions
   were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the
   Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North,
   and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of
   Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the
   territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee,
   consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament
   to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was
   not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken.
{1721}
   The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North
   commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on
   Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the
   Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to
   pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills
   which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773,
   of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of
   maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a
   wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government
   was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the
   charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating
   power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous
   majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in
   1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the
   history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers
   met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an
   interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of
   £400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was
   restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till
   the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till
   its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to
   submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the
   Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its
   servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged
   to export to the British settlements within its limits British
   goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole
   constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre
   of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All
   the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be
   submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and
   three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General
   of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary
   of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of
   £8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made
   subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and
   Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India
   Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act,
   and to hold their offices for five years; after that period
   the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject
   to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's
   correspondence with India relating to civil and military
   affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the
   service of the King or of the Company might receive presents,
   and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were
   excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this
   memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was
   completely subverted, and the government of India passed
   mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief
   management of affairs was vested in persons in whose
   appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who
   might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who
   nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large
   salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified
   only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was
   obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. …
   Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell,
   Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four
   Councillors."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 13 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
   The First English Governor-General.
   Administration of Warren Hastings.
   Execution of Nuncomar.
   The Rohilla War.
   Annexation of Benares.
   Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

   "The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage
   he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a
   dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)
   had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no
   superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an
   equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended
   chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two
   out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and
   without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place
   in which to follow the history of the first general council
   and its factions, apart from the consequences to British
   interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three
   out of four of the council (and those the new officials from
   England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that
   the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double
   system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This
   functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a
   high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold
   the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …
   eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and
   much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,
   and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah
   Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;
   and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as
   to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.
   Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere
   else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to
   the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside
   Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza
   Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest
   office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman
   administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became
   Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant
   Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied
   the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal
   dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in
   London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors
   that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties
   and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they
   sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,
   and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar
   had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order
   and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not
   punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided
   his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to
   overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That
   turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the
   Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and
   Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to
   prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.
{1722}
   Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings
   prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of
   the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the
   greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and
   resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach
   him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the
   Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief
   Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge
   brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six
   years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared
   very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was
   found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death
   by the judges."

      _H. Martineau,
      British Rule in India,
      chapter 9._

   "It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried
   over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many
   different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the
   course of a century it has been made the theme of historical,
   political, and biographical discussions; all the points have
   been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it
   has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to
   impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily,
   though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the
   Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and
   nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly
   suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary
   English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen,
   after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most
   skilful analysis, after examining every document and every
   fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has
   pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was
   perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the
   prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of
   conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in
   relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective
   than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and
   demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs,
   the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven
   demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey
   based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never
   before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be
   accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence
   can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the
   innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature
   affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply
   than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political
   transactions, which are little understood and leniently
   condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to
   prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that
   he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James
   Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the
   general motives of human action, the moral certainty that
   Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that
   the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his
   demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole
   there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who
   treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and
   Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute
   of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar
   openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations,
   became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his
   accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for
   forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence
   exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 3._

   "James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole
   administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings
   than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by
   William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's
   story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present
   day, is known to English people in general only by the
   terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay
   on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of
   mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English
   ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'
   'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in
   order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when
   he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully
   dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest
   consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of
   much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,
   believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an
   affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my
   father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few
   injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one
   which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his
   successor in office, and am better able than most persons to
   appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to
   India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair
   a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a
   kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient
   grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,
   and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to
   the effect which his language produced. He did not know his
   own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences
   which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a
   man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is
   that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than
   Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute
   fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his
   duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he
   said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to
   favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with
   justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out
   favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to
   me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from
   my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my
   personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own
   earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that
   every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the
   first matter which directed my attention to the subject was
   the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in
   the State Trials and his character as described by Lord
   Macaulay.
{1723}
   There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have
   been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the
   case has not suggested to me a single observation in
   Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the
   verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.
   Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is
   impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of
   course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to
   the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the
   exhibits."

      _J. F. Stephen,
      The Story of Nuncomar,
      pages 2-3, 186-187._

   "Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla
   War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against
   the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The
   Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was
   therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but
   it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations
   urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay.
   Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of
   having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke
   called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation
   on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted
   the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for
   himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to
   Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike
   down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows
   beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion.
   … 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the
   destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke
   as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous
   nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively
   small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had
   imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population;
   and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The
   north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the
   course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years
   before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which
   was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing
   class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population
   of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the
   Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no
   more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty
   years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But
   the fact that the corner of what geographically was our
   barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for
   us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas.
   Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to
   help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain
   their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772,
   however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in
   getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of
   Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla
   chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to
   be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the
   Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he
   coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes,
   into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this
   treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they
   could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined
   the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred
   twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling
   them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas,
   he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from
   a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip
   the land they had conquered."

      _The Spectator,
      April 2, 1892._

      _Sir John Strachey,
      Hastings and the Rohillas._

   "The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of
   dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in
   the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the
   Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of
   Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money
   must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved.
   Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of
   Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an
   adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from
   the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had
   been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the
   Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them
   with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of
   rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which
   Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue
   of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his
   private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made
   in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance
   with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had
   repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his
   body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings
   required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike
   purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings
   with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like
   a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances,
   which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The
   Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve
   him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and
   lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his
   own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern
   dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by
   malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of
   the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who
   have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter
   of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious
   vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger
   to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine
   would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill
   his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had
   already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in
   Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each
   other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering
   of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved
   it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of
   twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no
   mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands.
{1724}
   He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in
   quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with
   Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling,
   as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little
   parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the
   populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar,
   the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue,
   in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He
   even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the
   haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer
   for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at
   Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper
   stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an
   explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to
   Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in
   substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as
   Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods,
   that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah
   under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly
   arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers
   were flocking into the city from his strong castle of
   Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they
   provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys
   guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded
   muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been
   forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers.
   Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the
   narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult
   Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a
   rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to
   Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared
   betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with
   his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have
   paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But
   the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the
   nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. …
   Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham,
   bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The
   beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a
   campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and
   Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of
   richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th
   November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty,
   amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors;
   and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury
   at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and
   improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's
   forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute
   hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing
   another object of his journey up the country."

      _L. J. Trotter,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 6._

   "It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely
   aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point
   the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections
   from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign
   Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W.
   Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth,
   the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied
   war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master,
   the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis
   faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the
   mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing
   the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure
   which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly
   protested against a transaction which he was powerless to
   prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and
   their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to
   have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to
   govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army
   mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of
   the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that
   the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the
   Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with
   the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by
   the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give
   Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and
   misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's
   dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in
   Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no
   doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest
   men may still hold different opinions. But on all the
   weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for
   further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for
   instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help
   in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he
   prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for
   plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that
   he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's
   own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn
   compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

      _L. J. Trotter,
      Warren Hastings and his Libellers
      (Westminster Review, March, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 7-11._

      _H. E. Busteed,
      Echoes from Old Calcutta._

      _G. W. Forrest,
      The Administration of Warren Hastings._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      Memoirs of Warren Hastings,
      volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2._

INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

   "The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the
   French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all
   direct competition between the two nations in that country
   impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to
   stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest
   of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once
   more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in
   1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the
   Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces,
   both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed
   no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief
   invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance
   they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to
   afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent
   proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some
   instances hostile to his interest.
{1725}
   As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the
   balance of power established by the rivalry between the
   British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with
   French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely
   possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder
   Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible.
   Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of
   1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations
   had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst.
   At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including
   30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and
   soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts
   of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated
   a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns
   were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of
   his principal officers acted with gross treachery or
   cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies
   were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in
   imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers
   held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable
   bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and
   by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect
   a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the
   small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than
   3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000
   men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a
   similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and
   much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the
   Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged
   for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November.
   Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the
   chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French
   fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared
   almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in
   Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the
   energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by
   extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a
   few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to
   Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved
   himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius
   to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the
   long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is
   sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of
   about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he
   succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to
   abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French
   fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found
   to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an
   army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least
   eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the
   great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the
   Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south
   of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of
   Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent
   struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at
   Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish
   them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were
   afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill
   and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro,
   and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was
   weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months
   before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and
   Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783,
   Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace,
   which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a
   mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so
   many other great wars, neither of the contending parties
   gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the
   expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of
   nearly four years."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 14 (volume 5)._

   "The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal,
   which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by
   a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian
   government of that time could carry on a campaign by war
   loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of
   revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers;
   and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the
   men, but also the chief political direction and military
   leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the
   calamities of the English in the western and southern
   Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when
   Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius,
   could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there
   could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the
   English position in India, had tested the firmness of its
   foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the
   only period in the long contest between England and the native
   powers, during which our position in India was for a time
   seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from
   this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a
   result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings.
   … Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary
   influence at a time when the great families and the House of
   Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in
   his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India
   Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed
   by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate
   Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial
   establishments, and at the same time to find money for
   carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been
   involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had
   been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying
   and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home
   dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans,
   so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was
   thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at
   Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as
   crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation
   in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national
   interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of
   sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and
   he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed
   with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England;
   the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his
   impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and
   to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible
   procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years'
   trial before the House of Lords."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Rise of the British Dominion in India,
      chapter 11, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
      History of Hydur Naik,
      chapters 27-31._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 8._

      _L. B. Bowring,
      Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
      chapters 14-15._

{1726}

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
   State of India.
   Extent of English rule.
   Administration of Lord Cornwallis.
   War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).
   The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,
   and its fruit.

   "When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply
   the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west,
   Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the
   Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost
   exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties
   of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that
   of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan
   had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained
   by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers
   that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen
   Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided
   between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia,
   Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the
   supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on
   the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he
   had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old
   Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of
   Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore,
   had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the
   Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the
   English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great
   event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three
   great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides
   Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the
   north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the
   province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the
   jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large
   stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the
   peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad
   were their dependent allies; they administered the country of
   the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller
   potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor
   to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office,
   however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to
   urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord
   Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began
   with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom
   the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken,
   in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by
   Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an
   ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other
   defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was,
   however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the
   town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered
   into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war
   upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all
   Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be
   restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which,
   notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage
   rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a
   decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took
   the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with
   great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the
   besieged. However, so wretched had been the English
   preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons,
   and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis,
   after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat
   and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other
   equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in
   the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same
   (1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well
   provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next
   campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of
   several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of
   Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord
   Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island
   formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided
   with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the
   river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy
   artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000
   infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is
   celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success
   on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg,
   whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the
   whole island was carried and all preparations made for the
   siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such
   confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire
   discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should
   give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war
   expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded
   territory was divided between the allies, the Company
   obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending
   eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out
   of war between England and the French Republic, the French
   settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord
   Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal
   government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government
   as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India
   Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the
   scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced
   them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the
   administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He
   separated the connection of the revenues from the
   administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn.
   … He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the
   Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent
   Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      lecture 9 (volume 1)._

{1727}

   "In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue
   was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the
   Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or
   Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land
   revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a
   matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the
   office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had
   never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was
   supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time
   that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class
   of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars
   were the only people that seemed available for the purpose,
   and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It
   was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to
   others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class,
   that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to
   immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights
   in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised,
   and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has
   been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given
   to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the
   intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to
   confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the
   country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of
   property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights
   which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the
   State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they
   should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing
   the share of the produce or rental to which the State was
   entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue
   to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in
   the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it
   was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those
   rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention
   was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.
   Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. …
   The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it
   be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can
   wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government,
   Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in
   India, the amount now received by the State from the land in
   Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum
   that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a
   moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is
   given away in return for no service to the State or to the
   public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with
   exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take
   no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few
   years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens.
   The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the
   maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British
   Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer
   classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the
   millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were
   all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. …
   'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent
   Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to
   record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and
   Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings,
   all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments;
   and every five years there was to be filed in the public
   offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task
   was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. …
   The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of
   the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the
   rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and
   even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was
   maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences
   of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately
   prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth
   increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom
   began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots
   became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other
   circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights
   of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the
   ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to
   the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of
   the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000;
   according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of
   the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that
   the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value
   of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of
   the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is
   not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual
   rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made
   some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called
   £17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much
   more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about
   £3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last
   century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No
   portion of this increase has been due to the action of the
   zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to
   whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the
   peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of
   the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of
   poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,'
   it is this."

      _Sir J. Strachey,
      India,
      lecture 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      The Administration of the East India Co.,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      _J. Mill,
      History of British India,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

      _W. S. Seton-Karr,
      The Marquess Cornwallis,
      chapter 2._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      James Thomason,
      chapter 9._

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.
   The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

   "Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785,
   and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he
   wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with
   evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess
   the good opinion of my country." But underneath this
   superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which
   had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the
   Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud
   through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the
   movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before
   Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session
   of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords.
   On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court
   commenced.
{1728}
   There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more
   gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to
   grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at
   Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well
   calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an
   imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which
   belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to
   the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the
   talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by
   liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every
   advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and
   from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind
   either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days
   when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far
   away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living
   under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing
   strange characters from right to left. The High Court of
   Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the
   days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of
   exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares,
   and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place
   was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William
   Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the
   inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the
   just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the
   hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed
   and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment,
   the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of
   Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his
   fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues
   were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by
   cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled
   by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their
   vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law.
   Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper
   House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from
   their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey
   old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were
   crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or
   the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together,
   from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous
   empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the
   representatives of every science and of every art. … The
   Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and
   bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that
   great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous
   country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies,
   had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he
   had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had
   loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to
   glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like
   a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom
   were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the
   highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded
   Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more
   humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the
   Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later,
   successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of
   Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and
   Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates
   attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the
   blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green
   benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke
   at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of
   gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so
   regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious
   tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had
   refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and
   his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to
   that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the
   answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two
   whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would
   otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of
   Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable
   poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied
   by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general
   introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought
   and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the
   highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the
   character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted
   the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had
   originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and
   of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr.
   Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte
   Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and
   hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the
   Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was
   intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him
   was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation
   lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation
   during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been
   paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded,
   contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father
   might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the
   arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous
   admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not
   last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the
   impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty
   charges. On two only of these had even the case for the
   prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings
   had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in
   the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to
   the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the
   Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The
   spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great
   displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went
   on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had
   the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other
   business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the
   impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only
   seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At
   length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced,
   near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the
   Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords.
{1729}
   … Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found
   Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to
   the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was
   still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was
   then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that
   the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He
   bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision
   had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. …
   It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was
   guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment
   of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was
   also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal
   law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions
   against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on
   different principles, and that a man who had governed an
   empire during thirteen years might have done some very
   reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving
   of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Warren Hastings (Essays)._

   "The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a
   cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false
   notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the
   standard which the English people would in future insist upon
   maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the
   East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an
   example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national
   conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a
   burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of
   loading him with curses and driving him away into the
   wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor
   that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on
   his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that
   menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the
   prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of
   justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted
   its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and
   impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

      _Sir A. Lyall,
      Warren Hastings,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Burke,
      Works,
      volumes 8-12._

      _Speeches of Managers and Counsel
      in the Trial of Warren Hastings,
      edited by E. A. Bond._

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
   The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.
   Treaty with the Nizam.
   Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.
   War with the Mahrattas.
   Assaye and Laswari.
   Territorial acquisitions.

   "The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from
   1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was
   uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the
   Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with
   imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the
   country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from
   whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political
   vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first
   he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must
   be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native
   princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by
   surrendering their political independence. The history of
   India since his time has been but the gradual development of
   this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen
   Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of
   January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French
   invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the
   governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this
   time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards
   occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was
   the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments
   guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of
   Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were
   disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of
   Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French
   Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his
   dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as
   'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded
   a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for
   the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon
   Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of
   Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his
   hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme
   of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing
   himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower
   Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings
   had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century,
   our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high
   up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow
   made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between
   the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In
   Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before
   Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay.
   Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi
   in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south
   to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's
   government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his
   opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of
   faith. The time had arrived when the English must either
   become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal
   Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass
   either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to
   the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the
   British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the
   British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The
   treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as
   the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and
   established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those
   limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically
   held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord
   Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the
   second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for
   dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern
   India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of
   his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower
   throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power
   of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily
   handled.
{1730}
   Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample
   provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern
   India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely
   organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to
   live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance
   had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy
   of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did
   not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself
   to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of
   Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a
   possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions
   at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by
   treaty not to take any European into his service without the
   consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in
   every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley
   next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu,
   whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's
   intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an
   opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his
   refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in
   viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in
   person, and to watch over the course of events. One English
   army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a
   contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western
   coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired
   into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died
   fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of
   Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination
   as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a
   peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing
   with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation.
   The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was
   restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom
   Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was
   partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English.
   At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of
   South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the
   principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British
   administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost
   as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had
   been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with
   Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were
   they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The
   Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The
   recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona,
   who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of
   the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was
   annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In
   Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and
   Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards
   the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the
   coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several
   Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In
   1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by
   Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory,
   induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged
   himself to the British to hold communications with no other
   power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the
   maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the
   English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it
   led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the
   Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the
   Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are
   perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms
   in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of
   resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the
   indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The
   armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of
   Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley
   operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won
   the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and
   Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign
   in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received
   less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh
   [August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the
   cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of
   Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of
   the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end
   of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for
   peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the
   Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more
   under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the
   English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in
   1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by
   every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The
   concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a
   series of operations against Holkar, which brought little
   credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel
   Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the
   convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel
   Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person
   at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an
   instance of a British army in India having to turn back with
   its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally
   taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office
   carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In
   Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the
   North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British
   rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new
   Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from
   the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered
   Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the
   Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Maxwell,
      Life of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 2-12._

      _J. M. Wilson.
      Memoir of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 2-9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Decisive Battles of India,
      chapters 9-10._

      _W. H. Hutton,
      The Marquess Wellesley._

      _J. S. Cotton,
      Mountstuart Elphinstone,
      chapter 4._

{1731}

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
   Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.
   Sepoy revolt at Vellore.
   Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.
   Conquest of the Mauritius.
   The Ghorka War.

   "The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to
   British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of
   Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose
   in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the
   Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the
   Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post,
   and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse
   the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of
   Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to
   surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large
   tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the
   Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those
   of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal
   the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis
   was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he
   had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have
   ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on
   the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not
   death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the
   country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a
   while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional
   arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both
   Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He
   refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the
   Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar,
   together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he
   annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput
   princes on the ground that they had deserted the British
   government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar.
   For some years the policy of the British government was a
   half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta
   princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail
   extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in
   Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long
   as they respected the territories of the British government
   and its allies. … All this while an under-current of
   intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in
   the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British
   supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and
   rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from
   a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote
   from the British Isles that the existence of the British
   government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies.
   Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the
   brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had
   introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat,
   in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had,
   moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with
   earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of
   the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight
   miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore
   consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At
   midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body
   fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were
   killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the
   British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to
   know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were
   distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the
   flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the
   news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a
   British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a
   troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of
   Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers
   were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord
   Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell
   of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep
   Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier
   was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the
   Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh
   kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the
   British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the
   Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had
   refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord
   Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if
   the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity,
   the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who
   had done homage to the British government during the campaigns
   of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were
   appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9
   a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a
   mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and
   complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was
   to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French
   and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British
   side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet
   Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British
   interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait
   until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand
   possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice,
   and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up
   the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with
   the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to
   push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took
   the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of
   the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken
   until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He
   conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from
   the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British
   trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter
   his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and
   Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the
   Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and
   privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java,
   until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions,
   and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord
   Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius
   from the French; and he conducted another expedition in
   person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who
   at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has
   remained a British possession until this day, but Java was
   restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. …
   Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of
   the Himalayas.
{1732}
   Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal
   had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of
   Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the
   British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were
   conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas.
   The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman
   conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military
   despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the
   country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During
   the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to
   encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues
   from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were
   obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the
   Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for
   the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to
   which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was
   absolutely necessary to make a stand against their
   pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to
   Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored
   they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer
   arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of
   Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later
   title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in
   1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from
   the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to
   Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed
   a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the
   day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas,
   a British detachment entered the districts and set up police
   stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but
   they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army
   suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police
   stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then
   returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British
   government in the way of reprisals. The war against the
   Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against
   the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to
   Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties
   of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four
   divisions by four different routes. … General David
   Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the
   Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the
   half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five
   months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress
   after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on
   a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack
   on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the
   British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison
   came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the
   honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the
   Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses.
   Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to
   cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and
   jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British
   Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the
   treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the
   Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed.
   Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu,
   and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the
   British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a
   bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said
   about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the
   pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to
   take any European into her service without the consent of the
   British government."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      India under British Rule,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cunningham,
      History of the Sikhs,
      chapters 5-6._

      _E. Thornton,
      History of British Empire in India,
      chapters 21-24 (volume 4)._

INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
   Suppression of the Pindaris.
   Overthrow of the Mahratta power.
   The last of the Peshwas.

   "For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of
   mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any
   standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing
   a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes.
   As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had
   shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars
   in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own
   account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment
   seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of
   Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year
   after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain
   their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each
   new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be
   seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues
   and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next
   aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the
   Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord
   Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout
   India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince
   after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power
   that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely
   compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for
   a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his
   villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against
   their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord
   Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the
   Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the
   headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any
   other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel
   and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms
   may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between
   thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he
   had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy
   had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering
   at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced
   from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing
   the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been
   felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the
   autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army
   which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000
   strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south,
   a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians
   who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of
   India.
{1733}
   In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great
   cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among
   the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former
   conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against
   Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills
   and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except
   in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous
   robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and
   sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who
   joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British
   power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for
   renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask
   which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of
   October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from
   Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna,
   beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the
   first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone
   as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a
   body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which
   Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha
   army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at
   Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from
   Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of
   awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not
   3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was
   heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily
   advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later
   General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on
   Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa
   from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small
   village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with
   only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole
   day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight
   under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and
   diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the
   desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would,
   there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak
   force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the
   Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him
   northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th
   February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying
   foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's
   staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while
   covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks
   longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute
   pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of
   escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the
   great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir
   John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had
   any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still
   shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He
   himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at
   Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires
   had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands,
   while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the
   house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the
   Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of
   Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he,
   too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of
   the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000,
   suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400
   men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside
   Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the
   repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more
   than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur
   itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah
   might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful
   and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long
   before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off
   a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he
   wandered about the country for several years, and died at
   Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of
   Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our
   arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad
   to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English
   protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of
   his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if
   not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the
   English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and
   decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived
   the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same
   blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English
   merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The
   last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar
   was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in
   name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent
   princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English
   Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only
   in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh,
   was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana
   bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of
   masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit
   Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful
   neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his
   ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a
   new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for
   peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a
   ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture
   of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India
   came to an end."

      _L. J. Trotter,
      History of India,
      book 5, chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapters 19-20._

      _J. G. Duff,
      History of the Mahrattas,
      volume 3, chapters 17-20._

      _Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,
      The Marquess of Hastings,
      chapters 4-7._

INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
   The first Burmese War.
   English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.
   Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.
   Rechartering of the East India Company.
   It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

   "On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry
   fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the
   Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon
   Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time
   when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long
   period of peace.
{1734}
   In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of
   Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer.
   Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature,
   which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north,
   had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east.
   On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a
   struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the
   inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or
   Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who
   rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese
   Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with
   their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they
   overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable
   territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan
   brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions
   in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule
   of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British
   territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis
   for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a
   portion of its course between the possessions of the British
   in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the
   object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had
   occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on
   a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese,
   claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove
   it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a
   challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the
   Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat
   its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the
   Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of
   accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island;
   collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British
   and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in
   February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of
   1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be
   condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the
   nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the
   strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. …
   Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the
   Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid
   stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains,
   and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the
   Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of
   Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial
   port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with
   jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all
   low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The
   authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon
   branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an
   officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command
   of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they
   determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with
   ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory
   was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance
   in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought
   with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men
   perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. …
   When more favourable weather returned with the autumn,
   Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked
   from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards,
   moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an
   expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong,
   occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army
   into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land,
   passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The
   climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot
   weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824.
   … The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the
   campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised
   their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms
   which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam,
   Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company;
   the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his
   capital, and to pay a very large sum of
   money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The
   increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add
   to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company
   complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to
   expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new
   and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself.
   The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to
   the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true
   interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William
   Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no
   stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had
   served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta
   in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government
   with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. …
   Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge,
   was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of
   fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In
   two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which
   deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage
   to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the
   still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the
   suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow,
   was required to show her devotion to her husband by
   sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive
   Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this
   barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of
   abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and
   Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was
   identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to
   Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the
   consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The
   danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition
   proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order
   without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which
   had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely
   unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be
   remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that
   these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself.
   … One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck.
{1735}
   In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous
   by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as
   Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met,
   disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed
   themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to
   strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The
   burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the
   crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation
   unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs
   usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and
   claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck
   selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to
   put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a
   gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were
   assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always
   produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his
   guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his
   associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the
   band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of
   treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the
   Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the
   same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee,
   succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which
   he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater
   portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics
   he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The
   British during his rule made few additions to their
   possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native
   states. … The privileges which the East India, Company
   enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British
   Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a
   period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the
   conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very
   different from those on which it had been originally granted.
   Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade,
   Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to
   all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the
   China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the
   strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities
   were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would
   not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their
   views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern
   logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further
   extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842].
   … The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so
   prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had
   remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the
   monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made
   its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833].
   … The Government consented to compensate the Company for the
   loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the
   territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance
   that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its
   trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a
   quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from
   proposing an alteration for which the country was not
   prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which
   the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it
   left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery
   of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made
   Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English
   jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in
   Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At
   the same time the disabilities which still clung to the
   natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the
   first time allowed to hold land in India. These important
   proposals were carried at the close of the first session of
   the first reformed Parliament."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 25 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      Administration of the East India Company,
      parts 3-4._

      Sir C. Trevelyan,
      The Thugs
      (Edin. Review, January, 1837).

      _Illustrations of the History of the Thugs._

      _M. Taylor,
      Confessions of a Thug, introduction._

      _D. C. Boulger,
      Lord William Bentinck,
      chapters 4-6._

INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
   The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.
   Conquest and annexation of Scinde.
   Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.

   "With the accession of Lord Auckland, Bentinck's successor,
   began a new era in Anglo-Indian history, in which the
   long-sown seeds of fresh political complications, which even
   now seem as far from solution as ever, began to put forth
   fruit. All danger from French ambition had passed away: but
   Russian intrigue was busy against us. We had brought the
   danger on ourselves. False to an alliance with Persia, which
   dated from the beginning of the century, we had turned a deaf
   ear to her entreaties for help against Russian aggression, and
   had allowed her to fall under the power of her tyrant, who
   thenceforth used her as an instrument of his ambition. The
   result of our selfish indifference appeared in 1837, when
   Persia, acting under Russian influence, laid siege to Herat,
   which was then under Afghan rule. While Herat was still
   holding out, the Shah was at last threatened with war, and
   raised the siege. Then was the time for Auckland to destroy
   the Russian danger once for all, by making a friend of the
   power which seemed to be the natural barrier against invasion
   from the north-west. After a long series of revolutions, Dost
   Mahomed, the representative of the now famous tribe of
   Baruckzyes, had established himself upon the throne, with the
   warm approval of the majority of the people; while Shah Sooja,
   the leader of the rival Suddozyes, was an exile. The ruling
   prince did not wait for Auckland to seek his friendship. He
   treated the Russian advances with contempt, and desired
   nothing better than to be an ally of the English. Auckland was
   urged to seize the opportunity. It was in his power to deal
   Russia a crushing blow, and to avert those troubles which are
   even now harassing British statesmen. He did not let slip the
   opportunity. He flung it from him, and clutched at a policy
   that was to bring misery to thousands of families in England,
   in India, and in Afghanistan, and to prove disastrous to the
   political interests of all three countries. … Those who are
   least interested in Indian history are not likely to forget
   how the Afghan mob murdered the British Envoy and his
   associates; how the British commander, putting faith in the
   chiefs of a people whom no treaties can bind, began that
   retreat from which but one man escaped to tell how 16,000 had
   perished; how poor Auckland, unmanned by the disaster, lacked
   the energy to retrieve it; how the heroic Sale held out at
   Jellalabad till Pollock relieved him; how Auckland's
   successor, Lord Ellenborough, dreading fresh disasters,
   hesitated to allow his generals to act till, yielding to their
   indignant zeal, he threw upon them the responsibility of that
   advance to Cabul which retrieved the lost prestige of our
   arms.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842, and 1842-1869.

{1736}

   Thus closed the first act of a still unfinished drama. After
   celebrating the triumph of the victorious army, Ellenborough
   sent Charles Napier to punish the Ameers of Scinde [see
   SCINDE], who, emboldened by the retreat from Cabul, had
   violated a treaty which they had concluded with the British
   Government. The result of the war was the annexation of the
   country: but the whole series of transactions is only
   remembered now as having given rise to the dispute on the
   question of the guilt of the Ameers between Napier and James
   Outram. Less talked of at the time, but historically more
   important, was Ellenborough's reconstitution of the British
   relations with the Sindia of the day. Political disturbances
   had for some time agitated that prince's court, while his army
   had swollen to a dangerous size, and, like the Sikh army since
   Runjeet Singh's death, which had taken place a few years
   before, had passed beyond the control of the civil power. In
   these two armies Ellenborough saw a danger which might disturb
   the peace of Hindostan. He foresaw that the Sikh soldiers,
   released from the stern discipline of Runjeet Singh, would
   soon force a government which they despised to let them cross
   the Sutlej in quest of plunder. Two years later his character
   as a prophet was vindicated; and, if he had not now, in
   anticipation of the invasion which then took place, disbanded
   the greater part of Sindia's army, and over-awed the remainder
   by a native contingent under the command of British officers,
   the Sikhs would probably have joined their forces with the
   Mahrattas. … But the Directors took a different view of
   their Governor-General's conduct of affairs. In June, 1844,
   all India was astonished by the news that Ellenborough had
   been recalled. He had helped to bring about his own downfall,
   for in the controversies with his masters in which he, like
   some of the ablest of his predecessors, had found himself
   involved, he had shown an unfortunate want of discretion; but,
   though by bombastic proclamations and a theatrical love of
   display he had sometimes exposed himself to ridicule, many of
   his subordinates felt that in him they had lost a vigorous and
   able ruler. Sir Henry Hardinge, who was raised to the peerage
   before the close of his administration, succeeded to the
   office of Governor-General, and waited anxiously for the
   breaking of the storm which his predecessor had seen
   gathering. The Sikhs, the Puritans of India [see SIKHS], who
   were not strictly speaking a nation, but a religious
   brotherhood of warriors called the Khalsa, were animated by
   two passions equally dangerous to the peace of those around
   them, a fierce enthusiasm, half military, half religious, for
   the glory of their order, and an insatiable desire for
   plunder. By giving them full scope for the indulgence of these
   passions, and by punishing all disobedience with merciless
   severity, Runjeet Singh had governed his turbulent subjects
   for forty years: but, when he died, they broke loose from all
   control; and the weak Government of Lahore found that they
   could only save their own capital from being plundered by the
   Khalsa army by sending it to seek plunder in British
   territory. Thus began the first Sikh war."

      _T. R. E. Holmes,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir L. Griffin,
      Ranjit Singh._

      _L. J. Trotter,
      The Earl of Auckland,
      chapters 4-13._

INDIA: A. D. 1843.
   Conquest of Scinde.

      See SCINDE.

INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
   The Sikh Wars.
   Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

   "There had always been an expectation that whenever Runjeet
   Singh died, there would be trouble with his soldiery; and it
   soon appeared that some incursion was in contemplation, for
   which the Sikh troops were prepared by an able European
   training under French officers. While the strife about the
   succession was going on in the Punjaub, the military element
   of society there became supreme; and the government at
   Calcutta considered it necessary to move troops to the
   frontier to preserve peace, and reassure the inhabitants of
   whole districts which dreaded the incursions of a haughty and
   lawless soldiery. The Sikhs were alarmed at the approach of
   English troops, and adopted the same course towards us that we
   had tried with their western neighbours—they crossed the
   frontier to forestall our doing it. Whether this move was a
   device of the Sikh chiefs, as some say it was, to get rid of
   the army, and perhaps to cause its destruction by the British,
   and thus to clear the field for their own factions; or whether
   war with the British was considered so inevitable that the
   invasion of our territory was intended as a measure of
   prudence, we need not here decide. The fact was that the Sikh
   soldiery gathered round the tomb of Runjeet Singh, preparing
   themselves for a great battle soon to happen; and that war was
   virtually declared at Lahore in November, 1845, and fairly
   begun by the troops crossing the Sutlej on the 11th of
   December, and taking up a position near Ferozepore. The old
   error prevailed in the British councils, the mistake denounced
   by Charles Metcalfe as fatal—that of undervaluing the enemy.
   The Sikhs had been considered unworthy to be opposed to the
   Afghans in Runjeet's time; and now we expected to drive them
   into the Sutlej at once; but we had never yet, in India, so
   nearly met with our match. The battle of Moodkee was fought
   under Sir Hugh Gough, on the 18th of December, and 'the
   rabble' from the Punjaub astonished both Europeans and Sepoys
   by standing firm, manœuvring well, and rendering it no easy
   matter to close the day with honour to the English arms. This
   ill-timed contempt was truly calamitous, as it had caused
   miscalculations about ammunition, carriage, hospital-stores,
   and everything necessary for a campaign. All these things were
   left behind at Delhi or Agra; and the desperate necessity of
   winning a battle was only enough barely to save the day. The
   advantage was with the British in the battle of Moodkee, but
   not so decisively as all parties had expected. After a
   junction with reinforcements, the British fought the invaders
   again on the 21st and 22nd, at Ferozeshur. On the first night
   our troops were hardly masters of the ground they stood on,
   and had no reserve, while their gallant enemy had large
   reinforcements within reach.
{1737}
   The next day might easily have been made fatal to the English
   army, at times when their ammunition fell short; but the Sikhs
   were badly commanded at a critical moment, then deserted by a
   traitorous leader, and finally driven back. For a month after
   this nothing was done by the British, and the Sikhs crossed
   the Sutlej at their ease. The valour of Gough and of Hardinge,
   who, while Governor-General, had put himself under the orders
   of the Commander-in-Chief, had saved the honour of the
   English; but their prestige was weakened among their own
   Sepoys, and even the European regiments; much more among the
   Sikhs; and most of all in the eyes of the vigilant surrounding
   states. It was a matter of life and death now to bring up
   guns, ammunition and treasure. A considerable portion fell
   into the enemy's hands on the 21st of January, on its way to
   the relief of Loodeeana; but the battle of Aliwal on the 28th
   was again a true British fight. The Sikhs were driven into the
   Sutlej; and as soon as they had collected in their stronghold
   of Sobraon on the other side, they were driven thence by a
   closing struggle on the 10th of February. The Sikhs were
   beaten, with a slaughter of 5,000 (some say 8,000) men;
   against 320 killed and 2,000 wounded on our side. The
   Maharajah submitted, the road to Lahore lay open, and the
   Governor-General could make his own terms. He flattered
   himself that he had arranged a protectorate of the Punjaub
   which would render annexation unnecessary; and all who could
   believe in it rejoiced that means had been found to escape the
   necessity of adding new conquests to a territory already much
   too large. As the Punjaub could not pay its amount of tribute
   to the Company, Cashmere and some other territory was accepted
   instead, and given, as a kingdom, to Gholab Singh … on his
   paying a portion of the debt, thus reimbursing the Company,
   and lessening the overgrown power of the Punjaub rulers. When,
   at the close of 1846, the English troops should be withdrawing
   from Lahore, the Sikh chiefs begged that they might remain,
   and take care of the Punjaub till the young Maharajah should
   grow up to manhood."

      _H. Martineau,
      British Rule in India,
      chapter 20._

   "Lord Hardinge entrusted the government of the Punjab to a
   Council of Regency, consisting of Sikh nobles under the
   guidance of Sir Henry Lawrence as British Resident. He refused
   to create a subsidiary army, but he left a British force to
   protect the government until the boy Dhuleep Singh reached his
   majority. Two-thirds of the Sikh army of the Khalsa were
   disbanded. The Jullunder Doab between the Sutlej and the Beyas
   was added to the British empire. … Lord Dalhousie succeeded
   Lord Hardinge in 1848. Shortly afterwards the Punjab was again
   in commotion. Sikh government under British protection had
   failed to keep the peace. The army of the Khalsa had
   disappeared, but the old love of license and plunder was
   burning in the hearts of the disbanded soldiery. The Sikh
   governor of Multan revolted; two Englishmen were murdered. A
   British force besieged the rebels in Multan. It was joined by
   a Sikh force in the service of the Council of Regency
   commanded by Shere Singh. So far the revolt at Multan was
   regarded as a single outbreak which would be soon suppressed
   by the capture of the fortress. In reality it was the
   beginning of a general insurrection. Shere Singh, who
   commanded the Sikh force in the besieging army, suddenly
   deserted the British force and joined his father Chutter
   Singh, who was already in open rebellion. The revolt was
   secretly promoted by the queen mother, and spread over the
   Punjab like wildfire. The old soldiers of the Khalsa rallied
   round Shere Singh and his father. The half-and-half government
   set up by Lord Hardinge was unable to cope with a revolution
   which was restoring the old anarchy. In November, 1848, Lord
   Gough advanced against the rebel army. Then followed the
   famous campaign between the Chenab and Jhelum rivers about 100
   miles to the north of Lahore. In January, 1849, Lord Gough
   fought the dubious battle of Chillianwallah, near the spot
   where Alexander the Great crossed the Jhelum and defeated the
   army of Porus. Meanwhile Multan surrendered, and the besieging
   force joined Lord Gough. In February the Sikh army was utterly
   defeated at Gujerat."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Indian History,
      chapter 11._

   "Gujrat was essentially a forenoon battle, with the whole day
   before the combatants to finish their work. It commenced with
   a magnificent duel of artillery; the British infantry
   occupying post after post as they were abandoned by the enemy;
   and the British cavalry breaking up the Sikh masses and
   scattering them by pursuit. Of the sixty Sikh guns engaged,
   fifty-three were taken. Lord Dalhousie resolved to make the
   victory a final one. 'The war,' he declared, 'must be
   prosecuted now to the entire defeat and dispersion of all who
   are in arms against us, whether Sikhs or Afghans.' General
   Gilbert hurried out with a pursuing force of 12,000, horse,
   foot and artillery, the day after the battle. In the
   breathless chase which followed across the plains of the
   Punjab to the frontier mountain-wall, the Sikh military power
   was destroyed for ever. On the 12th of March, 1849, General
   Gilbert received the submission of the entire Sikh army at
   Rawal Pindi, together with the last forty-one of the 160 Sikh
   cannon captured by the British during the war. While the Sikh
   army heaped up their swords and shields and matchlocks in
   submissive piles, and salamed one by one as they passed
   disarmed along the British line, their Afghan allies were
   chased relentlessly westwards, and reached the safety of the
   Khaibar Pass panting, and barely twenty miles in front of the
   English hunters. The horsemen of Afghanistan, it was said,
   'had ridden down through the hills like lions and ran back
   into them like dogs.' The question remained what to do with
   the Punjab. The victory of Sobraon in 1846 gave to Lord
   Hardinge the right of conquest: the victory at Gujrat in 1849
   compelled Lord Dalhousie to assert that right. Lord Hardinge
   at the end of the first Punjab war in 1846, tried, as we have
   seen, an intermediate method of ruling the province by British
   officers for the benefit of the infant prince. This method had
   failed. … In determining the future arrangements for the
   Punjab, Lord Dalhousie had as his advisers the two Lawrences.
   Sir Henry Lawrence, the former Resident at Lahore; hurried
   back from his sick-leave in England on the breaking out of the
   war. He was of opinion that the annexation of the Punjab might
   perhaps be just, but that it would be inexpedient. His brother
   John, afterwards Lord Lawrence, who had also acted as
   Resident, although as much averse in general principle to
   annexation as Henry, was convinced that, in this case,
   annexation was not only just, but that its expediency was
   'both undeniable and pressing.'
{1738}
   Lord Dalhousie, after a full review of the efforts which had
   been made to convert the Sikh nation into a friendly power
   without annexation, decided that no course now remained to the
   British Government but to annex. … The annexation of the
   Punjab was deliberately approved of by the Court of Directors,
   by Parliament, and by the English nation."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. B. Edwardes and H. Merivale,
      Life of Sir Henry Lawrence._

      _R. B. Smith,
      Life of Lord Lawrence,
      volume 1, chapters 7-11._

      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      volume 1, chapters 1-7._

      _H. B. Edwardes,
      A Year on the Punjab Frontier, 1848-49._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      Men and Events of My Time in India,
      chapters 3-4._

INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856.
   Lord Dalhousie's minor annexations.
   The lapse of dependent Native States.
   The case of Nana Sahib.

   "In applying the doctrine of lapse to the Hindu chiefdoms, on
   default of natural successors or of an heir legally adopted
   with the sanction of the Ruling Power, Lord Dalhousie merely
   carried out the declared law of the case, and the deliberately
   formulated policy of the Government of India, years before he
   arrived in the country. In so doing, however, Lord Dalhousie
   became the unconscious but effective instrument by which the
   old India of Lord Wellesley at the beginning of the century
   was prepared for its conversion, in 1858, into the new India
   of the Queen. … The fundamental question was whether we
   should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence
   of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an
   adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted
   the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality
   on failure of natural heirs. It declared, however, in 1834,
   that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the
   rule.' … As the evils of the old system of government by
   sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of
   India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. …
   What Lord Dalhousie did, therefore, was not to invent a new
   principle of Indian law, but to steadily apply an old
   principle. … The first case in which this principle came to
   be applied, shortly after Lord Dalhousie's arrival, was the
   Native State of Satara. That Maratha principality had been
   constituted by the British Government on the general break up
   of the Maratha power in 1818, and confirmed to the 'sons and
   heirs, and successors' of the recipient in 1819. In 1839 the
   reigning prince was deposed for misconduct by the British
   Government in the exercise of its Suzerain rights. By the same
   rights the British Government then set up the brother of the
   deposed prince on the throne. … The Raja, whom in 1839 we
   had placed on the throne, applied for permission to adopt a
   son. The British Government deliberately withheld the
   permission; and in the last hours of his life the Raja, in
   1848, hastily adopted a son without the consent of the
   Government." Lord Dalhousie, with the advice of the Court of
   Directors, declared in this case that the territory of Satara
   had lapsed, on the death of the Raja, by failure of heirs, to
   the Power which deposed, and it was annexed, accordingly, to
   the British dominions. Under kindred circumstances the Native
   States of Sambalpur, on the south-western frontier of Lower
   Bengal, and Jhansi, a fragment of the Maratha dominions in
   Northern India, were absorbed. "The same principle of lapse on
   failure of heirs was applied by Lord Dalhousie to several
   other dependent States. Jaitpur in Bundelkhand, Baghat a petty
   hill Chiefdom of 36 square miles in the Punjab, Udaipur on the
   Western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Budawal in Khandesh,
   passed under direct British rule from this cause. The fort and
   military fief of Tanjore were annexed after Lord Dalhousie's
   departure from India, but practically on the grounds set forth
   by his government. … By far the largest accession of
   territory made during Lord Dalhousie's rule, to the British
   dominions on the failure of heirs, was the great central tract
   of India known as Nagpur. This Maratha principality as now
   constituted into the Central Provinces, and after various
   rectifications of frontier, has an area of 113,279 square
   miles, with a population of 12,000,000 souls. The territories
   annexed by Lord Dalhousie in 1854 make nearly four-fifths of
   the present Central Provinces. … It is difficult to find any
   ground for the charge which Mr. Kaye brought in 1865 against
   Lord Dalhousie, for 'harshness' towards the man afterwards
   known as the infamous Nana Sahib [see below: A. D. 1857
   (MAY-AUGUST)]. As this charge, however, is still occasionally
   repeated, and as it has even been suggested that Lord
   Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny of
   1857, in consequence of his action towards Nana Sahib in 1851,
   I must briefly state the facts. In 1818, the Peshwa of the
   Marathas, completely beaten in the field, threw himself on the
   generosity of the British. Sir John Malcolm, then the
   Governor-General's Agent in the Deccan, assured him of his
   protection, and engaged that he should receive an allowance of
   £80,000 a year for his support. … There could not be the
   slightest pretension that it was ever anything more than a
   personal annuity; and from first to last all mention of heirs
   is carefully excluded. The records show that the ex-Peshwa,
   Baji Rao, was well aware of this. Baji Rao lived until 1851,
   leaving to his adopted son, Nana Sahib, an immense fortune
   admitted to amount to £280,000, and believed by the Government
   of the North-western Provinces to greatly exceed that sum. The
   Government of India at once acknowledged the adopted son's
   title to this splendid heritage, and out of its own
   beneficence added to it the Jaghir, or grant of land, on which
   his father had resided in the North-western Provinces. But the
   pension, paid out of the tax-payers' pockets, lapsed upon the
   death of the annuitant."

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapters 6-7._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      India under Dalhousie and Canning._

INDIA: A. D. 1849-1893.
   The life in exile of Dhuleep Singh, heir to the Sikh throne.

   "Few careers have ever been more instructive to those who can
   see than that of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who died in
   Paris on Sunday [October 22, 1893] of apoplexy. He finished
   life a despised exile, but no man of modern days ever had such
   chances, or had seen them snatched, partly by fate, partly by
   fault, so completely from his lips. But for an accident, if
   there is such a thing as accident, he would have been the
   Hindoo Emperor of India.
{1739}
   His father, Runjeet Singh, that strange combination of Louis
   XI. and Charles the Bold, had formed and knew how to control
   an army which would have struck down all the native powers of
   India much more easily than did any of the Tartar conquerors.
   Without its master at its head, that army defeated the
   British, and but for a magnificent bribe paid to its General
   (vide Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs') would have driven
   the English from India, and placed the child, Dhuleep Singh,
   upon the throne of the Peninsula, to be supported there by
   Sikh and Rajpoot, Mahratta, and Beharee. Apart from the
   English, there was nothing to resist them; and they were
   guided by a woman, the Ranee Chunda Kour; who of all modern
   women was most like Mary of Scots as her enemies have painted
   her, and of whom, after her fall, Lord Dalhousie said that her
   capture would be worth the sacrifice of a brigade. How Dhuleep
   Singh would have reigned had Runjeet Singh's destiny completed
   itself is another matter—probably like a Hindoo Humayoon—for
   even if not the son of Runjeet Singh, who, be it remembered,
   acknowledged him, he inherited ability from his mother; he was
   a bold man, and he was, as his career showed, capable of wild
   and daring adventure. He fell, however, from his throne under
   the shock of the second Sikh War, and began a new and, to all
   appearance, most promising career. Lord Dalhousie had a pity
   for the boy, and the English Court—we never quite understood
   why—an unusually kindly feeling. A fortune of £40,000 a year
   was settled on him, he was sent to England, and he was granted
   rank hardly less than that of a Prince of the Blood. He turned
   Christian—apparently from conviction, though subsequent
   events throw doubt on that—a tutor, who was quite competent,
   devoted himself to his education, and from the time he became
   of age he was regarded as in all respects a great English
   noble. He knew, too, how to sustain that character,—made no
   social blunders, became a great sportsman, and succeeded in
   maintaining for years the sustained stateliness of life which
   in England is held to confer social dignity. Confidence was
   first shaken by his marriage, which, though it did not turn
   out unsuccessfully, and though the lady was in after-life
   greatly liked and respected, was a whim, his bride being a
   half Coptic, half English girl whom he saw in an Egyptian
   school-room, and who, by all English as well as Indian ideas
   of rank, was an unfitting bride. Then he began over-spending,
   without the slightest necessity, for his great income was
   unburdened by a vast estate; and at last reduced his finances
   to such a condition that the India Office, which had made him
   advance after advance, closed its treasury and left him, as he
   thought, face to face with ruin. Then the fierce Asiatic blood
   in him came out. He declared himself wronged, perhaps believed
   himself oppressed, dropped the whole varnish of civilisation
   from him, and resolved to make an effort for the vengeance
   over which he had probably brooded for years. He publicly
   repudiated Christianity, and went through a ceremony intended
   to readmit him within the pale of the Sikh variety of the
   Hindoo faith. Whether it did readmit him, greater doctors than
   we must decide. That an ordinary Hindoo who has eaten beef
   cannot be readmitted to his own caste, even if the eating is
   involuntary, is certain, as witness the tradition of the
   Tagore family; but the rights of the Royal are, even in
   Hindooism, extraordinarily wide, and we fancy that, had
   Dhuleep Singh succeeded in his enterprise, Sikh doctors of
   theology would have declared his re-admission legal. He did
   not, however, succeed. He set out for the Punjab intending, it
   can hardly be doubted, if the Sikhs acknowledged him, to make
   a stroke for the throne, if not of India, at least of Runjeet
   Singh; but he was arrested at Aden, and after months of fierce
   dispute, let go, on condition that he should not return to
   India. He sought protection in Russia, which he did not
   obtain, and at last gave up the struggle, made his peace with
   the India Office, took his pension again, and lived, chiefly
   in Paris, the life of a disappointed but wealthy idler. There
   was some spirit in his adventure, though it was unwisely
   carried out. The English generally thought it a bit of
   foolhardiness, or a dodge to extract a loan from the India
   Office; but those who were responsible held a different
   opinion, and would have gone nearly any length to prevent his
   reaching the Punjab. They were probably wise. The heir of
   Runjeet might have been ridiculed by the Sikhs as a Christian,
   but he might also have been accepted as a reconverted man; and
   one successful skirmish in a district might have called to
   arms all the 'children of the sugar and the sword,' and set
   all India on fire. The Sikhs are our very good friends, and
   stood by us against any revival of the Empire of Delhi, their
   sworn hereditary foe; but they have not forgotten Runjeet
   Singh, and a chance of the Empire for themselves might have
   turned many of their heads."

      _The Spectator,
      October 28, 1893._

INDIA: A. D. 1852.
   The second Burmese War.
   Annexation of Pegu.

   "While Lord Dalhousie was laying out the Punjab like a Scotch
   estate, on the most approved principles of planting,
   road-making, culture, and general management, the chance of
   another conquest at the opposite extremity of his vice-kingdom
   summoned him to Calcutta. The master of a trading barque from
   Chittagong, who was charged unjustly with cruelty to a pilot,
   had been fined £100 by the authorities of Rangoon, and the
   captain of a brig had in like manner been amerced for alleged
   ill-treatment of his crew. To support a claim for restitution,
   two English ships of war had been sent to the mouth of the
   Irrawadi. … Misunderstandings arose on some inexplicable
   point of etiquette;" the British commodore seized a royal
   yacht which lay in the river; the angry Burmese opened fire on
   his ships from their forts; and, "with an unprecedented
   economy of time and trouble in the discovery or making of
   plausible pretexts, a second war with Burmah was thus begun. A
   long catalogue of affronts, wrongs, and injuries, now for the
   first time poured in. … The subjects of the 'Golden Foot'
   … must make an official apology for their misbehaviour, pay
   ten lacs compensation, and receive a permanent Resident at
   Rangoon. If these demands were not met within five weeks,
   further reparation would be exacted otherwise, and as there
   was no fear that they would, preparations were made for an
   expedition. … The Governor-General threw himself with
   enthusiasm into an undertaking which promised him another
   chance of gratifying, as his biographer says, his 'passion for
   imperial symmetry.'
{1740}
   He resolved 'to take in kingdoms wherever they made a gap in
   the red line running round his dominions or broke its internal
   continuity.' There was a gap in the ring-fence between Arracan
   and Moulmein, which Pegu would fill. The logical inference was
   clear, the duty of appropriation obvious. Let us have Pegu.
   Ten millions of silver happening just then to lie in the
   coffers of Fort William, how could they be better invested
   than in a jungle on the sea coast, inhabited by quadrupeds and
   bipeds after their various kinds, alike unworthy of being
   consulted as to their future destiny? … In April, Martaban
   and Rangoon were taken with trifling loss. Operations being
   suspended during the rainy season, the city of Prome was not
   attacked till October, and after a few hours' struggle it
   fell, with the loss of a single sepoy on the side of the
   victors. There was in fact no serious danger to encounter,
   save from the climate; but that unfailing ally fought with
   terrible effect upon the side of Ava. … On the 20th
   December, 1852, a proclamation was issued, which, after
   reciting undisguisedly the ineffably inadequate pretext for
   the war, informed the inhabitants that the Governor in Council
   had resolved that the maritime province of Pegu should
   henceforth form a portion of the British territories in the
   East, and warning the King of Ava, 'should he fail to renew
   his former relations of friendship with the British
   Government, and seek to dispute its quiet possession of the
   province, the Governor-General would again put forth the power
   he held, which would lead to the total subversion of the
   Burman State, and to the ruin and exile of the King and his
   race.' But no depth of humiliation could bring the Sovereign
   or his Ministers to acknowledge the hopelessness of defeat or
   the permanency of dismemberment. … Twenty years have passed,
   and no treaty recognising the alienation of Pegu has yet [in
   1872] been signed."

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapter 24._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapters 15-16 (volume 2)._

INDIA: A. D. 1856.
   The annexation of Oudh.

      See OUDH.

INDIA: A. D. 1857.
   Causes of the Sepoy Mutiny.

   "The various motives assigned for the Mutiny appear inadequate
   to the European mind. The truth seems to be that Native
   opinion throughout India was in a ferment, predisposing men to
   believe the wildest stories, and to rush into action in a
   paroxysm of terror. Panic acts on an Oriental population like
   drink upon a European mob. The annexation policy of Lord
   Dalhousie, although dictated by the most enlightened
   considerations, was distasteful to the Native mind. The spread
   of education, the appearance at the same moment of the
   steam-engine and the telegraph wire, seemed to reveal a deep
   plan for substituting an English for an Indian civilisation.
   The Bengal sepoys especially thought that they could see
   further than the rest of their countrymen. Most of them were
   Hindus of high caste; many of them were recruited from Oudh.
   They regarded our reforms on Western lines as attacks on their
   own nationality, and they knew at first hand what annexation
   meant. They believed it was by their prowess that the Punjab
   had been conquered, and that all India was held. The numerous
   dethroned princes, or their heirs and widows, were the first
   to learn and to take advantage of this spirit of disaffection
   and panic. They had heard of the Crimean war, and were told
   that Russia was the perpetual enemy of England. Our munificent
   pensions had supplied the funds with which they could buy the
   aid of skilful intriguers. They had much to gain, and little
   to lose, by a revolution. In this critical state of affairs,
   of which the Government had no official knowledge, a rumour
   ran through the cantonments that the cartridges of the Bengal
   army had been greased with the fat of pigs,—animals unclean
   alike to Hindu and Muhammadan. No assurances could quiet the
   minds of the sepoys. Fires occurred nightly in the Native
   lines; officers were insulted by their men; confidence was
   gone, and only the form of discipline remained. In addition,
   the outbreak of the storm found the Native regiments denuded
   of many of their best officers. The administration of the
   great empire to which Dalhousie put the corner-stone, required
   a larger staff than the civil service could supply. The
   practice of selecting able military men for civil posts, which
   had long existed, received a sudden and vast development.
   Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, British Burma, were
   administered to a large extent by picked officers from the
   Company's regiments. Good and skilful commanders remained; but
   the Native army had nevertheless been drained of many of its
   brightest intellects and firmest wills at the very crisis of
   its fate."

      _W. W. Hunter,
      Brief History of the Indian People,
      chapter 15._

   "The annexation of Oudh had nothing to do with the Mutiny in
   the first place, though that measure certainly did add to the
   number of our enemies after the Mutiny commenced. The old
   government of Oudh was extremely obnoxious to the mass of our
   native soldiers of the regular army, who came from Oudh and
   the adjacent province of Behar, and with whom the Mutiny
   originated. These men were the sons and kinsmen of the Hindu
   yeomen of the country, all of whom benefited more or less by
   annexation; while Oudh was ruled by a Muhammadan family which
   had never identified itself with the people, and whose
   government was extremely oppressive to all classes except its
   immediate creatures and followers. But when the introduction
   of the greased cartridges had excited the Native Army to
   revolt, when the mutineers saw nothing before them short of
   escape on the one hand or destruction on the other, they, and
   all who sympathised with them, were driven to the most
   desperate measures. All who could be influenced by love or
   fear rallied round them. All who had little or nothing to lose
   joined their ranks. All that dangerous class of religious
   fanatics and devotees who abound in India, all the political
   intriguers, who in peaceful times can do no mischief, swelled
   the numbers of the enemy, and gave spirit and direction to
   their measures. India is full of races of men, who, from time
   immemorial, have lived by service or by plunder, and who are
   ready to join in any disturbance which may promise them
   employment. Oudh was full of disbanded soldiers who had not
   had time to settle down. Our gaols furnished thousands of
   desperate men let loose on society. The cry throughout the
   country, as cantonment after cantonment became the scene of
   triumphant mutiny was, 'The English rule is at an end. Let us
   plunder and enjoy ourselves.' The industrious classes
   throughout India were on our side, but for a long time feared
   to act.
{1741}
   On the one side they saw the few English in the country shot
   down or flying for their lives, or at the best standing on the
   defensive, sorely pressed; on the other side they saw summary
   punishment, in the shape of the plunder and destruction of
   their houses, dealt out to those who aided us. But when we
   evinced signs of vigour, when we began to assume the offensive
   and vindicate our authority, many of these people came forward
   and identified themselves with our cause."

      _Lord Lawrence,
      Speech at Glasgow, 1860 (quoted by Sir O. T. Burne,
      in "Clyde and Strathnairn," chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Indian Mutiny of 1857,
      chapters 1-5._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May).
   The outbreak at Meerut.
   Seizure of Delhi by the Mutineers.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Explosion of the magazine.

   "The station of Meerut, some 40 miles north-east of Delhi, was
   one of the very few in India where adequate means existed for
   quelling an outbreak of native troops. There was a regiment of
   English Dragoons, a battalion of the 60th Rifles, and a strong
   force of Horse and Foot Artillery, far more than sufficient to
   deal with the three native regiments who were also quartered
   in the cantonment. The court-martial on … eighty-five men of
   the 3rd N. C., who had refused to take their cartridges, had
   by this time completed its inquiry. The men were sentenced to
   long terms of imprisonment. The sentence was carried out with
   impressive solemnity. On a morning [May 9] presently to become
   historical—the heavens sombre with rolling clouds—the
   brigade assembled to hear their comrades' doom—to see them
   stripped of their uniform and secured with felons' manacles.
   The scene produced intense emotion. Resistance was impossible.
   There were entreaties, tears, imprecations, as the prisoners
   were marched away to jail. Discipline had been vindicated by a
   terrible example. The next day was Sunday. In the evening, as
   the European Riflemen were gathering for Church, a sudden
   movement took place in the native quarters. The Cavalry dashed
   off to the jail to rescue their imprisoned companions. The two
   Infantry regiments, after a moment's wavering, threw in their
   lot with the mutineers. Then ensued a scene such as,
   unhappily, became too familiar in Upper India within the next
   few weeks. Officers were shot, houses fired, Europeans—men,
   women, and children, wherever found, were put to the sword. A
   crowd of miscreants from the jail, suddenly set free, made a
   long night of pillage. Meanwhile, paralysed by the sudden
   catastrophe, the English General of the Division and the
   Brigadier of the Station forbore to act, refused to let their
   subordinates act, and the Sepoys who had fled, a disorganised
   mob, in different directions, soon found themselves gathering
   on the march for Delhi. In the early morning at Delhi, where
   courts and offices had already begun the day's work, a line of
   horsemen were descried galloping on the Meerut road. They
   found their way into the city, into the presence of the King;
   cut down the European officials, and, as they were gradually
   reinforced by the arrival of fresh companions, commenced a
   general massacre of the Christian population. A brave
   telegraph clerk, as the mutineers burst in upon him, had just
   time to flash the dreadful tidings to Lahore. Before evening,
   the native regiments fired upon their officers and joined the
   mutineers. After weary hours of hope for the help from Meerut
   which never came, the British officers in command were
   compelled to recognise that the only chance of safety lay in
   flight. Ere the day closed, every European who had risen that
   morning in Delhi, was dead, or awaiting death, or wandering
   about the country in the desperate endeavor to reach a place
   of safety. A day dark with disaster was, however, illumined by
   the first of those heroic acts which will make the siege of
   Delhi immortal. The insurgents had their first taste of the
   quality of the race whose ascendancy they had elected to
   assail. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer in charge of the
   Magazine, and eight gallant companions, resolved, early in the
   day, that, if they could not defend their invaluable supply of
   ammunition, they would destroy it, though its destruction
   would almost certainly involve their own. For hours they
   defended their stronghold against an overpowering crowd of
   assailants. The train was laid: the sergeant who was to fire
   it stood ready: Willoughby took a last look out upon the
   Meerut road: the assailants were swarming on the walls. The
   word was spoken: a vast column of flame and smoke shot upward.
   Two thousand of the assailants were blown into the air [and
   five of the defenders perished, while Willoughby and three of
   his companions escaped]. The thunder of that explosion
   announced to the mutineers that one great object in the
   seizure of Delhi had escaped their grasp."

      _H. S. Cunningham,
      Earl Canning,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      book 4, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May-August).
   The situation at Delhi.
   Siege of the English at Cawnpur.
   Their surrender and massacre.
   The siege of Lucknow.

   "A few days of inactivity allowed the flame to blaze up beyond
   possibility of immediate extinction. The unchallenged
   occupation of the Mughal capital by rebel sepoys and badmashes
   was followed by risings and massacres in almost every station
   within range of the example; and from Firozpur, Bareilly,
   Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Cawnpur, and numerous other places
   came harrowing tales of massacre, suffering, and heroism. When
   this terrible news reached army head-quarters, it was received
   with a perhaps natural incredulity. Nevertheless, a force was
   hastily assembled at Ambala; and with the troops thus
   mobilised, General Anson, then Commander-in-Chief, made
   preparations to march against the renowned city of the Mughal.
   The little force had hardly started, however, when its leader
   died of cholera (May 27th). It was not until the 1st of June
   that General Barnard, who had succeeded temporarily to the
   chief command, advanced in earnest against the now jubilant
   rebels. Meanwhile, a small body of troops under Brigadier
   Archdale Wilson marched out from Meerut, after a disastrous
   delay; and the combined force, amounting to about 3,000
   Europeans and one battalion of Gurkhas, fought its way onwards
   till it reached the outskirts of the city on the 8th of June,
   1857. We may now refer to the three great points,—Delhi,
   Cawnpur, and Lucknow, round which the Mutiny was, so to speak,
   centred during the earlier period of the revolt; namely, from
   May, 1857, till the arrival in India of Sir Colin Campbell in
   August of that year.
{1742}
   The modern city of Delhi was founded by the Emperor Jahangir
   in 1631. Situated on the right bank of a branch of the Jumna
   river it was, as it still is, surrounded by a high wall some
   seven miles in extent, strengthened by bastions and by a
   capacious dry ditch. The British force held the elevated
   ground known as the Ridge, which extends two miles along the
   northern and western faces of the city—a position taken up
   some centuries before by Timur Shah and his Tartar hordes when
   advancing to attack old Delhi. At intervals along the Ridge
   stood the Flagstaff Tower, the Observatory, a large mansion
   called Hindu Rao's house, and other defensible buildings. The
   space between the city and the Ridge was thickly planted, for
   the most part with trees and shrubs; in the midst of which
   might be seen numerous mosques and large houses, and the ruins
   of older buildings. It soon became evident that the position
   held by the British force on the Ridge was a false one; and
   the question arose whether the city might not be taken by a
   coup de main, seeing that it was impossible either to invest
   it or to attempt a regular siege with any chance of success. A
   plan of assault, to be carried out on the 12th of June, was
   drawn up by a young Engineer officer and sanctioned. Had this
   assault been delivered the city would in all likelihood have
   been taken and held. … But owing to a series of accidents,
   the plan fell through—a miscarriage the more to be regretted
   because the early recapture of the city would in all human
   probability have put a stop to further outbreaks. As matters
   stood, however, the gallant little force before Delhi could
   barely hold its own. It was an army of observation perpetually
   harassed by an active enemy. As time went on, therefore, the
   question of raising the siege in favour of a movement towards
   Agra was more than once seriously discussed, but was
   fortunately abandoned. On July 5th, 1857, General Barnard
   died, worn out with fatigue and anxiety. He was succeeded in
   command by General Archdale Wilson, an officer who, possessing
   no special force of character, did little more than secure the
   safe defence of the position until the arrival of Brigadier
   Nicholson from the Punjab, August 14th, 1857, with a moveable
   column of 2,500 men, Europeans and Sikhs. And here we may
   leave Delhi, for the moment, deferring till later any further
   details of the siege. The city of Cawnpur, situated on the
   south bank of the river Ganges, 42 miles south-west of Lucknow
   and 270 miles from Delhi, lies about a mile from the river in
   a large sandy plain. On the strip of land between the river
   and the town, a space broken by ravines, stretched the Civil
   Station and cantonments. A more difficult position to hold in
   an extremity cannot well be conceived, occupied as it was by
   four disaffected Sepoy regiments with but sixty European
   artillerymen to overawe them. There was, moreover, an
   incompetent commander. Realising after the disasters at Meerut
   and Delhi that his native garrison was not to be trusted, Sir
   Hugh Wheeler threw up a make-shift entrenchment close to the
   Sepoy lines. Commanded on all sides, it was totally unfitted
   to stand a siege. But a worse mistake was to follow. Alarmed
   as time went on at his growing difficulties, Sir Hugh Wheeler
   at length asked the notorious Nana Sahib [see above: A. D.
   1848-1856], who lived a few miles off at Bithur, to assist him
   with troops to guard the Treasury. For some months previously
   this archtraitor's emissaries had been spreading discontent
   throughout India, but he himself had taken care to remain on
   good terms with his European neighbours. He now saw his
   opportunity. Cawnpur, delivered into his hands by the
   misplaced confidence of its defenders, was virtually in his
   keeping. Of European succour there was no immediate hope. The
   place was doomed. The crash came three days before General
   Barnard's force reached Delhi. With the exception of a few
   devoted natives who remained faithful to their salt, the whole
   Sepoy force on the 5th of June rose in revolt, opened the
   doors of the jail, robbed the treasury, and made themselves
   masters of the magazine. The Nana cast aside all further
   pretence of friendship and, joined by the mutinous troops,
   laid siege to the entrenchment already mentioned, which with
   culpable military ignorance had been thrown up in one of the
   worst positions that could have been chosen. The besieging
   army numbered some 3,000 men. The besieged could only muster
   about 400 English soldiers, more than 70 of which number were
   invalids. For twenty-one days the little garrison suffered
   untold horrors from starvation, heat, and the onslaughts of
   the rebels; until the General in command listened to overtures
   for surrender, and the garrison marched out on the 27th of
   June, to the number of about 450 souls, provided with a
   promise of safeguard from the Nana, who would allow them, as
   they thought, to embark in country boats for Allahabad. Tantia
   Topi, who afterwards became notorious in Central India,
   superintended the embarkation. No sooner, however, were the
   Europeans placed in the boats, in apparent safety, than a
   battery of guns concealed on the river banks opened fire,
   while at the same time a deadly fusillade of musketry was
   poured on the luckless refugees. The Nana at length ordered
   the massacre to cease. He celebrated what he called his
   glorious victory by proclaiming himself Peshwa or Maratha
   Sovereign, and by rewarding his troops for their 'splendid
   achievements,' while the wretched survivors of his treachery,
   numbering about 5 men and 206 women and children, were taken
   back to Cawnpur and confined in a small building for further
   vengeance and insult. On the 15th of July came the last act of
   this tragedy. The Nana, having suffered a crushing defeat at
   the hands of Brigadier Havelock's force within a day's march
   of Cawnpur, as will presently be recorded, put the whole of
   his prisoners to death. The men were brought out and killed in
   his presence, while the women and children were hacked to
   pieces by Muhammadan butchers and others in their prison.
   Their bodies were thrown into what is now known as the
   Cawnpur Well.' Lucknow, at the time of the Mutiny, was in
   population, in extent, and in the number and importance of its
   principal buildings, one of the foremost cities of India. …
   The Residency stood on a hill gently sloping towards the
   river, and was an imposing edifice of three stories. Near it
   were the iron and stone bridges over the river. … At the
   outbreak of the Mutiny the Sepoy regiments were stationed in
   various localities within the city; while the 32nd Foot, the
   only European regiment on the spot, was quartered in a barrack
   about a mile or so from the Residency.
{1743}
   As was the case elsewhere, so it happened at Lucknow. While
   the population and native garrison were seething with
   sedition, the British authorities were hampered by ignorance
   of popular feeling, by the want of European troops, and by
   divided counsels. So, by the end of May, 1857, the rebellion
   in Oudh became an accomplished fact, although matters went on
   with comparative smoothness in Lucknow itself. At length,
   after a serious disaster at Chinhat, the British garrison was
   forced to withdraw to the Residency and its adjacent
   buildings; and on the 1st of July commenced the famous
   investment of this position by the rebel forces. The position
   was ill adapted for defence; for the lofty windows of the
   Residency itself not only allowed free access to the enemy's
   missiles, but its roof was wholly exposed. On the opposite
   side of the street, leading from the Bailey Guard Gate, was
   the house of the Residency Surgeon, Dr. (now Sir Joseph)
   Fayrer. It was a large but not lofty building with a flat roof
   which, protected by sand bags, afforded a good cover for our
   riflemen, and with a tyekhana, or underground story, that
   afforded good shelter for the women and children. But as a
   whole, the defences of the Residency were more formidable in
   name than in reality, and were greatly weakened by the
   proximity of high buildings from which the rebels without
   danger to themselves poured an unceasing fire. The siege had
   an ominous commencement. On July 4th the much-beloved Sir
   Henry Lawrence, the Resident, died of a wound received two
   days before from an enemy's shell that had fallen into his
   room. Brigadier Inglis succeeded him in command; and for three
   months the heroic garrison of about 1,700 souls held their
   weak position, amid inconceivable hardships and dangers,
   against thousands of the rebels who were constantly reinforced
   by fresh levies. It was well said in a general order by Lord
   Canning that there could not be found in the annals of war an
   achievement more heroic than this defence."

      _General Sir O. T. Burne,
      Clyde and Strathnairn,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War,
      book 9, chapters 1-3 (volume 3)._

      _G. O. Trevelyan,
      Cawnpore._

      _T. R. E. Holmes,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      chapters 8-10._

      _Lady Inglis,
      The Siege of Lucknow._

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (June-September).
   The siege, the storming and the capture of Delhi.
   Murder of the Moghul princes.

   "During the four months that followed the revolt at Delhi on
   the 11th of May, all political interest was centred at the
   ancient capital of the sovereigns of Hindustan. The public
   mind was occasionally distracted by the current of events at
   Cawnpore and Lukhnow, as well as at other stations which need
   not be particularised; but so long as Delhi remained in the
   hands of the rebels, the native princes were bewildered and
   alarmed; and its prompt recapture was deemed of vital
   importance to the prestige of the British government, and the
   re-establishment of British sovereignty in Hindustan. The
   Great Moghul had been little better than a mummy for more than
   half a century, and Bahadur Shah was a mere tool and puppet in
   the hands of rebel sepoys; but nevertheless the British
   government had to deal with the astounding fact that the
   rebels were fighting under his name and standard, just as
   Afghans and Mahrattas had done in the days of Ahmad Shah
   Durani and Mahadaji Sindia. To make matters worse, the roads
   to Delhi were open from the south and east; and nearly every
   outbreak in Hindustan was followed by a stampede of mutineers
   to the old capital of the Moghuls. Meanwhile, in the absence
   of railways, there were unfortunate delays in bringing up
   troops and guns to stamp out the fires of rebellion at the
   head centre. The highway from Calcutta to Delhi was blocked up
   by mutiny and insurrection; and every European soldier sent up
   from Calcutta was stopped for the relief of Benares,
   Allahabad, Cawnpore, or Lukhnow. But the possession of the
   Punjab at this crisis proved to be the salvation of the
   empire. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner, was called
   upon to perform almost superhuman work:—to maintain order in
   a newly conquered province; to suppress mutiny and
   disaffection amongst the very sepoy regiments from Bengal who
   were supposed to garrison the country; and to send
   reinforcements of troops and guns, and supplies of all
   descriptions, to the siege of Delhi. Fortunately the Sikhs had
   been only a few short years under British administration; they
   had not forgotten the miseries that prevailed under the native
   government, and could appreciate the many blessings they
   enjoyed under British rule. They were staunch to the British
   government, and eager to be led against the rebels. In some
   cases terrible punishment was meted out to mutinous Bengal
   sepoys within the Punjab; but the imperial interests at stake
   were sufficient to justify every severity, although all must
   regret the painful necessity that called for such extreme
   measures. … The defences of Delhi covered an area of three
   square miles. The walls consisted of a series of bastions,
   about sixteen feet high, connected by long curtains, with
   occasional martello towers to aid the flanking fire. … There
   were seven gates to the city, namely, Lahore gate, Ajmir gate,
   Turkoman gate, Delhi gate, Mori gate, Kabul gate, and Kashmir
   gate. The principal street was the Chandni Chouk, which ran in
   a direct line from the Delhi gate to the palace of the
   Moghuls. … For many weeks the British army on the Ridge was
   unable to attempt siege operations. It was, in fact, the
   besieged, rather than the besiegers; for, although the bridges
   in the rear were blown up, the camp was exposed to continual
   assaults from all the other sides. On the 23rd of June, the
   hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassy, the enemy made
   a greater effort than ever to carry the British position. The
   attack began on the right from the Subzi Mundi, its object
   being to capture the Mound battery. Finding it impossible to
   carry the battery, the rebels confined themselves to a hand to
   hand conflict in the Subzi Mundi. The deadly struggle
   continued for many hours; and as the rebels came up in
   overwhelming numbers, it was fortunate that the two bridges in
   the rear had been blown up the night before, or the assault
   might have had a different termination. It was not until after
   sunset that the enemy was compelled to retire with the loss of
   a thousand men. Similar actions were frequent during the month
   of August; but meanwhile reinforcements were coming up, and
   the end was drawing nigh. In the middle of August, Brigadier
   John Nicholson, one of the most distinguished officers of the
   time, came up from the Punjab with a brigade and siege train.
   On the 4th of September a heavy train of artillery was brought
   in from Ferozepore.
{1744}
   The British force on the Ridge now exceeded 8,000 men.
   Hitherto the artillery had been too weak to attempt to breach
   the City walls; but now fifty-four heavy guns were brought
   into position and the siege began in earnest. From the 8th to
   the 12th of September four batteries poured in a constant
   storm of shot and shell; number one was directed against the
   Kashmir bastion, number two against the right flank of the
   Kashmir bastion, number three against the Water bastion, and
   number four against the Kashmir and Water gates and bastions.
   On the 13th of September the breaches were declared to be
   practicable, and the following morning was fixed for the final
   assault upon the doomed city. At three o'clock in the morning
   of the 14th September, three assaulting columns were formed in
   the trenches, whilst a fourth was kept in reserve. The first
   column was led by Brigadier Nicholson; the second by Brigadier
   Jones; the third by Colonel Campbell; and the fourth, or
   reserve, by Brigadier Longfield. The powder bags were laid at
   the Kashmir gate by Lieutenants Home and Salkeld. The
   explosion followed, and the third column rushed in, and pushed
   towards the Juma Musjid. Meanwhile the first column under
   Nicholson escaladed the breaches near the Kashmir gate, and
   pushed along the ramparts towards the Kabul gate, carrying the
   several bastions in the way. Here it was met by the second
   column under Brigadier Jones, who had escaladed the breach at
   the Water bastion. The advancing columns were met by a
   ceaseless fire from terraced houses, mosques, and other
   buildings; and John Nicholson, the hero of the day, whilst
   attempting to storm a narrow street near the Kabul gate, was
   struck down by a shot and mortally wounded."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      Short History of India,
      part 3, chapter 25._

   "The long autumn day was over, and we were in Delhi. But Delhi
   was, by no means, ours. Sixty-six officers and 1,100 men—
   nearly a third, that is, of the whole attacking force—had
   fallen; while, as yet, not a sixth part of the town was in our
   power. How many men, it might well be asked, would be left to
   us by the time that we had conquered the remainder? We held
   the line of ramparts which we had attacked and the portions of
   the city immediately adjoining, but nothing more. The Lahore
   Gate and the Magazine, the Jumma Musjid and the Palace, were
   still untouched, and were keeping up a heavy fire on our
   position. Worse than this, a large number of our troops had
   fallen victims to the temptation which, more formidable than
   themselves, our foes had left behind them, and were wallowing
   in a state of bestial intoxication. The enemy, meanwhile, had
   been able to maintain their position outside the town; and if
   only, at this supreme hour, a heaven-sent General had appeared
   amongst them, they might have attacked our camp, defended as
   it was mainly by the sick, and the maimed, and the halt. …
   Never, perhaps, in the history of the Mutiny were we in quite
   so perilous a position as on the night which followed our
   greatest military success. General Wilson, indeed, proposed,
   as might have been expected from a man in his enfeebled
   condition of mind and body, to withdraw the guns, to fall back
   on the camp and wait for reinforcements there; a step which,
   it is needless to point out, would have given us all the
   deadly work to do over again, even if our force should prove
   able to maintain itself on the Ridge till reinforcements came.
   But the urgent remonstrances of Baird Smith and others, by
   word of mouth; of Chamberlain, by letter; and, perhaps, also,
   the echoes which may have reached him from the tempest-tossed
   hero who lay chafing against his cruel destiny on his
   death-bed, and exclaimed in a wild paroxysm of passion, when
   he heard of the move which was in contemplation, 'Thank God, I
   have strength enough left to shoot that man,' turned the
   General once more from his purpose. On the following day, the
   15th, vast quantities of the intoxicating drinks, which had
   wrought such havoc amongst our men, were destroyed by General
   Wilson's order, and the streets literally ran with rivers of
   beer, and wine, and brandy. Meanwhile, the troops were
   sleeping off their drunken debauch; and on the 16th active
   operations were resumed. On that day the Magazine was taken,
   and its vast stores of shot and shell, and of all the
   'material' of war, fell once more into the hands of their
   proper owners. By sapping gradually from house to house we
   managed, for three days more, to avoid the street-fighting
   which, once and again, has proved so demoralising to
   Englishmen; and, slowly but surely, we pressed back the
   defenders into that ever-narrowing part of the city of which,
   fortunately for themselves, they still held the bolt-holes.
   Many of them had already begun, like rats, to quit the sinking
   vessel. And now the unarmed population of the city flocked in
   one continuous stream out of the open gates, hoping to save
   their lives, if nothing else, from our avenging swords. On the
   19th, the palace of the Moguls, which had witnessed the last
   expiring flicker of life in an effete dynasty, and the cruel
   murder of English men, and women, and children, fell into our
   hands; and by Sunday, the 20th, the whole of the city—in
   large part already a city of the dead—was at our mercy. But
   what of the King himself and the Princes of the royal house?
   They had slunk off to the tomb of Humayoun, a huge building,
   almost a city in itself, some miles from the modern Delhi, and
   there, swayed this way and that, now by the bolder spirits of
   his army who pressed him to put himself at their head and
   fight it out to the death, as became the descendant of
   Tamerlane and Baber, now by the entreaties of his young wife,
   who was anxious chiefly for her own safety and that of her
   son, the heir of the Moguls; and now, again, by the plausible
   suggestions of a double-dyed traitor of his own house who was
   in Hodson's pay, and who, approaching the head of his family
   with a kiss of peace, was endeavoring to detain him where he
   was till he could hand him over to his employer and receive
   the price of blood, the poor old monarch dozed or fooled away
   the few hours of his sovereignty which remained, the hours
   which might still make or mar him, in paroxysms of imbecile
   vacillation and despair. The traitor gained the day, and
   Hodson, who could play the game of force as well as of fraud,
   and was an equal adept at either, learning from his
   craven-hearted tool that the King was prepared to surrender on
   the promise of his life, went to Wilson and obtained leave, on
   that condition, to bring him into Delhi. The errand, with such
   a promise tacked on to it, was only half to Hodson's taste.
{1745}
   'If I get into the Palace,' he had written in cool blood some
   days before, 'the house of Timour will not be worth five
   minutes' purchase, I ween.' … After two hours of bargaining
   for his own life and that of his queen and favourite son, the
   poor old Priam tottered forth and was taken back, in a
   bullock-cart, a prisoner, to his own city and Palace, and was
   there handed over to the civil authorities. But there were
   other members of the royal family, as Hodson knew well from
   his informants, also lurking in Humayoun's tomb. … With a
   hundred of his famous horse Hodson started for Humayoun's
   tomb, and, after three hours of negotiation, the three
   princes, two of them the sons, the other the grandson of the
   King, surrendered unconditionally into his hands. … Their
   arms were taken from them, and, escorted by some of his
   horsemen, they too were despatched in bullock-carts towards
   Delhi. With the rest of his horse, Hodson stayed behind to
   disarm the large and nerveless crowd, who, as sheep having no
   shepherd, and unable, in their paralysed condition, to see
   what the brute weight even of a flock of sheep might do by a
   sudden rush, were overawed by his resolute bearing. This done,
   he galloped after his prey and caught them up just before the
   cavalcade reached the walls of Delhi. He ordered the princes
   roughly to get out of the cart and strip,—for, even in his
   thirst for their blood, he had, as it would seem, an eye to
   the value of their outer clothes,—he ordered them into the
   cart again, he seized a carbine from one of his troopers, and
   then and there, with his own hand, shot them down deliberately
   one after the other. It was a stupid, cold-blooded, three-fold
   murder. … Had they been put upon their trial, disclosures of
   great importance as to the origin of the Mutiny could hardly
   fail to have been elicited. Their punishment would have been
   proportioned to their offence, and would have been meted out
   to them with all the patient majesty of offended law."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Life of Lord Lawrence,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir R. Temple,
      Lord Lawrence,
      chapter 7._

      _Sir R. Temple,
      Men and Events of my Time in India,
      chapter 7._

      _J. Cave-Brown,
      The Punjab and Delhi in 1857._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      History of the Indian Mutiny,
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _Major Hodson,
      Twelve Years of a Soldier's Life in India,
      part 2: The Delhi Campaign._

INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (July-June).
   General Havelock's campaign.
   Sir Colin Campbell's.
   The Relief of Lucknow.
   Substantial suppression of the Mutiny.

   "Meanwhile the greatest anxiety prevailed with regard to our
   countrymen and countrywomen at Lucknow and Cawnpore. The
   Indian government made every effort to relieve them; but the
   reinforcements which had been despatched from England and
   China came in slowly, and the demands made for assistance far
   exceeded the means at the disposal of the government. … The
   task of relieving the city was entrusted to the heroic General
   Havelock, who marched out with a mere handful of men, of whom
   only 1,400 were British soldiers, to encounter a large army
   and a whole country in rebellion. At Futtehpore, on the 12th
   of July, he defeated a vastly superior force, posted in a very
   strong position. After giving his men a day's rest, he
   advanced again on the 14th, and routed the enemy in two
   pitched battles. Next morning he renewed his advance, and with
   a force of less than 900 men attacked 5,000 strongly
   entrenched, and commanded by Nana Sahib. They were
   outmanœuvred, out-flanked, beaten and dispersed. But for this
   signal defeat they wreaked their vengeance on the unfortunate
   women and children who still remained at Cawnpore. On the very
   day on which the battle occurred, they were massacred under
   circumstances of cruelty over which we must throw a veil. The
   well of Cawnpore, in which their hacked and mutilated bodies
   were flung, presented a spectacle from which soldiers who had
   regarded unmoved the carnage of numerous battle-fields shrank
   with horror. Of all the atrocities perpetrated during this
   war, so fruitful in horrors, this was the most awful; and it
   was followed by a terrible retribution. It steeled the hearts,
   and lent a furious and fearless energy to the arms, of the
   British soldiery. Wherever they came, they gave no quarter to
   the mutineers; a few men often frantically attacked hundreds,
   frantically but vainly defending themselves; and never ceased
   till all had been bayoneted, or shot, or hewn in pieces. All
   those who could be shown to have been accomplices in the
   perpetration of the murders that had been committed were hung,
   or blown from the cannon's mouth. Though the intrepid Havelock
   was unable to save the women and children who had been
   imprisoned in Cawnpore, he pressed forward to Lucknow. But the
   force under his command was too small to enable him to drive
   off the enemy. Meanwhile Sir J. Outram, who was now returning
   from the Persian war, which had been brought to a successful
   conclusion, was sent to Oude as chief commissioner, with full
   civil and military power. This appointment was fully deserved;
   but it had the effect, probably not thought of by those who
   made it, of superseding Havelock just as he was about to
   achieve the crowning success of his rapid and glorious career.
   Outram, however, with a generosity which did him more real
   honour than a thousand victories would have conferred, wrote
   to Havelock to inform him that he intended to join him with
   adequate reinforcements; adding: 'To you shall be left the
   glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already
   struggled so much. I shall accompany you only in my civil
   capacity as commissioner, placing my military service at your
   disposal, should you please, and serving under you as a
   volunteer.' Thus Havelock, after gaining no fewer than twelve
   battles against forces far superior in numbers to the little
   band he originally led, was enabled at length, on the 25th of
   August, to preserve the civilians, the women, and children of
   Lucknow from the impending horrors of another massacre, which
   would no doubt have been as fearful as that of Cawnpore. The
   Highlanders were the first to enter, and were welcomed with
   grateful enthusiasm by those whom they had saved from a fate
   worse than death. However, the enemy, recovering from the
   panic which the arrival of Havelock and his troops had caused,
   renewed the siege. Sir Colin Campbell, who had assumed the
   command of the Indian army, had determined to march to the
   relief of Lucknow. He set out from Cawnpore on the 9th of
   November, but was obliged to wait till the 14th for
   reinforcements, which were on the way to join him, and which
   raised the force under his command to 5,000—a force
   numerically far inferior to that which it was to attack.
{1746}
   On the 17th of November the relief of Lucknow was effected.
   The music of the Highland regiments, playing 'The Campbells
   are coming,' announced to their delighted countrymen inside
   the city that the commander-in-chief himself was with the
   relieving force. Little time, however, was allowed for
   congratulations and rejoicings. The ladies, the civilians, and
   the garrison were quietly withdrawn; the guns, which it was
   thought not desirable to remove, were burst; and a retreat
   effected, without affording the enemy the slightest suspicion
   of what was going on until some hours after the town had been
   evacuated by its defenders. The retreating force reached
   Dilhasha on the 24th, without having sustained any serious
   molestation. There the gallant Havelock sank under the trials
   and hardships to which he had been exposed, and yielded up the
   life which was instrumental in preserving so many others from
   the most terrible of deaths. While Sir Colin Campbell was
   engaged in effecting the relief of Lucknow, intelligence
   reached Cawnpore that a large hostile army was making towards
   it. General Windham, who commanded there, unacquainted with
   the number or the position of the approaching force, marched
   forth to meet it, in the hope that he should be able to rout
   and cut up the advanced guard before the main body of the
   enemy could come to its assistance. But in this expectation he
   was disappointed. Instead of having to deal with the van, he
   engaged with the whole rebel army, and his little force,
   assailed on all sides, was obliged to retire. He at once
   despatched a letter to the commander-in-chief, requesting him
   to hasten to his assistance; but it was intercepted by the
   enemy. Fortunately Sir Colin Campbell, though ignorant of the
   critical position of his subordinate, came up just at the
   moment when the danger was at its height. This was on the 28th
   of November. He was, however, in no haste to attack the foe,
   and was content for the present merely to hold them in check.
   His first care was for the safety of the civilians, the women,
   and the children, which was not secured till the 30th; and he
   continued to protect them till the 5th of December, when they
   were all safely lodged at Allahabad. The enemy, unaware of the
   motive of his seeming inaction, imputed it to fear, and became
   every day more confident and audacious. On the 6th he at
   length turned fiercely on them, completely defeated them, and
   seized their baggage; he then dispersed and drove away another
   large force, under the command of Nana Sahib, which was
   watching the engagement at a little distance. The army entered
   the residence of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and took possession of
   much treasure, which had been concealed in a well. Nearly the
   whole of the enemy's artillery was captured; and the army,
   being overtaken as they were in the act of crossing into Oude,
   great numbers of them were destroyed. Of course, for the
   moment Lucknow, being no longer garrisoned, had fallen into
   the hands of the insurgents; but they were not long permitted
   to retain it. Strong reinforcements arrived, and the Indian
   government was enabled to send a force against Lucknow
   sufficient to overwhelm all resistance; and on the 15th of
   December this important city was in the undisputed possession
   of the British troops. This final recovery of the capital of
   Oude decided the reconquest of that country. A struggle was,
   indeed, maintained for some time longer; innumerable battles
   were fought; and the final subjugation of the country was
   effected in the month of June, 1858."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Forbes,
      Havelock,
      chapters 5-7._

      _General Sir O. T. Burne,
      Clyde and Strathnairn._

      _General Shadwell,
      Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde,
      volume 1, chapter 11,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-18._

      _T. Lowe,
      Central India during 1857-8._

INDIA: A. D. 1858.
   The Governor-General's Proclamation,
   Termination of the rule of the East India Company.
   The government transferred to the Crown.

   "By a singular circumstance, when the mutiny was suppressed in
   1858, the Governor-General, who in the previous year had been
   condemned for leniency which was thought ill-timed, was
   destined to receive censure for harshness which was declared
   unnecessary. On the eve of the fall of Lucknow, he drew up a
   proclamation confiscating the lands of all the great
   landowners in Oudh. Exceptions were, indeed, made to this
   sweeping decree. Landowners who could prove their loyalty were
   promised exemption from it, just as rebels who unconditionally
   surrendered, and whose hands were not stained with British
   blood, were offered pardon. There is no doubt that Canning, in
   drawing up this proclamation, relied on the exceptions which
   it contained, while there is equally no doubt that the critics
   who objected to it overlooked its parentheses. But its issue
   was made the basis of an attack which well-nigh proved fatal
   to the Governor-General's administration. The chances of party
   warfare had replaced Palmerston with Derby; and the
   Conservative minister had entrusted the Board of Control to
   the brilliant but erratic statesman who, fifteen years before,
   had astonished India with pageant and proclamation. …
   Ellenborough thought proper to condemn Canning's proclamation
   in a severe despatch, and to allow his censure to be made
   public. For a short time it seemed impossible that the
   Governor-General who had received such a despatch could
   continue his government. But the lapse of a few days showed
   that the minister who had framed the despatch, and not the
   Viceroy who had received it, was to suffer from the
   transaction. The public, recollecting the justice of Canning's
   rule, the mercy of his administration, almost unanimously
   considered that he should not have been hastily condemned for
   a document which, it was gradually evident, had only been
   imperfectly understood; and Ellenborough, to save his
   colleagues, volunteered to play the part of Jonah, and retired
   from the ministry. His retirement closes, in one sense, the
   history of the Indian Mutiny. But the transactions of the
   Mutiny had, almost for the first time, taught the public to
   consider the anomalies of Indian government. In the course of
   a hundred years a Company had been suffered to acquire an
   empire nearly ten times as large and as populous as Great
   Britain. It was true that the rule of the Company was in many
   respects nominal. The President of the Board of Control was
   the true head of the Indian Government, and spoke and acted
   through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. But
   this very circumstance only accentuated the anomaly. If the
   President of the Board of Control was in fact Indian minister,
   it was far simpler to make him Indian minister by name, and to
   do away with the clumsy expedient which alone enabled him to
   exercise his authority.
{1747}
   Hence it was generally decided that the rule of the Company
   should cease, and that India should thenceforward become one
   of the possessions of the crown. … A great danger thus led
   to the removal of a great anomaly, and the vast Indian empire
   which Englishmen had won was thenceforward taken into a
   nation's keeping."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 27 (volume 5)._

   The act "for the better government of India," which was passed
   in the autumn of 1858, "provided that all the territories
   previously under the government of the East India Company were
   to be vested in her Majesty, and all the Company's powers to
   be exercised in her name. One of her Majesty's principal
   Secretaries of State was to have all the power previously
   exercised by the Company, or by the Board of Control. The
   Secretary was to be assisted by a Council of India, to consist
   of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the
   Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by
   the Crown. The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled
   up by the Crown; those among the elected by the remaining
   members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward by
   the Secretary of State for India. The competitive principle
   for the Civil Service was extended in its application, and
   made thoroughly practical. The military and naval forces of
   the Company were to be deemed the forces of her Majesty. A
   clause was introduced declaring that, except for the purpose
   of preventing or repelling actual invasion of India, the
   Indian revenues should not, without the consent of both Houses
   of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any
   military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of
   her Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted that
   whenever an order was sent to India directing the commencement
   of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there, the fact should
   be communicated to Parliament within three months, if
   Parliament were then sitting, or, if not, within one month
   after its next meeting. These clauses were heard of more than
   once in later days. The Viceroy and Governor-General was to be
   supreme in India, but was to be assisted by a Council. India
   now has nine provinces, each under its own civil government,
   and independent of the others, but all subordinate to the
   authority of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the
   government of the Company, the famed 'John Company,' formally
   ceased on September 1st, 1858; and the Queen was proclaimed
   throughout India in the following November, with Lord Canning
   for her first Viceroy."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 36 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir H. S. Cunningham,
      Earl Canning,
      chapters 7-9._

      _Duke of Argyll,
      India Under Dalhousie and Canning._

INDIA: A. D. 1861.
   Institution of the Order of the Star of India.

      See STAR OF INDIA.

INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
   Vice-regal administrations of
   Lords Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook.

   Lord Canning was succeeded as Viceroy by Lord Elgin, in 1862;
   but Elgin only lived until November, 1863, and his successor
   was Sir John Lawrence, the savior of the Punjab. "Sir John
   Lawrence's Viceroyalty was an uneventful time. Great natural
   calamities by famine and cyclone fell upon the country, which
   called forth the philanthropic energies of Government and
   people. Commerce passed through an unexampled crisis, taxing
   skill and foresight. But the political atmosphere was calm.
   With the exception of little frontier wars, wasteful of
   resources that were sorely needed, there was nothing to divert
   the Government from the prosecution of schemes for the
   improvement of the physical and moral condition of the
   people." Sir John Lawrence held the Viceroyalty until January,
   1869, when he was succeeded by Lord Mayo and returned to
   England. He was raised, in that year, to the peerage, under
   the title of Baron Lawrence of Punjab and Grateley. He died
   ten years later.

      _Sir C. Aitchison,
      Lord Lawrence,
      chapters 7-12._

   Lord Lawrence's immediate successor, Lord Mayo, was
   assassinated, while Viceroy, in 1872, by a convict—a
   Highlander—at the convict settlement on the Andaman Islands,
   for no reason of personal hatred, but only because he
   represented the governing authority which had condemned the
   man. Lord Mayo was succeeded by Lord Northbrook, who held the
   office from 1872 to 1876.

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Earl of Mayo._

INDIA: A. D. 1876.
   Lord Lytton, Viceroy.

   The successor of Lord Northbrook in the Vice-regal
   office was Lord Lytton, appointed in 1876.

INDIA: A. D. 1877.
   The Native States and their quasi feudatory relation to the
   British Crown.
   Queen Victoria's assumption of the title of Empress of India.

   "In some sense the Indians were accustomed to consider the
   Company, as they now consider the Queen, to be the heir of the
   Great Mughal, and therefore universal suzerain by right of
   succession. But it is easy to exaggerate the force of this
   claim, which is itself a mere restatement of the fact of
   conquest. Politically, India is divided into two parts,
   commonly known as British territory and the native states. The
   first portion alone is ruled directly by English officials,
   and its inhabitants alone are subjects of the Queen. The
   native states are sometimes called feudatory—a convenient
   term to express their vague relation to the British crown. To
   define that relation precisely would be impossible. It has
   arisen at different times and by different methods; it varies
   from semi-independence to complete subjection. Some chiefs are
   the representatives of those whom we found on our first
   arrival in the country; others owe their existence to our
   creation. Some are parties to treaties entered into as between
   equal powers; others have consented to receive patents from
   their suzerain recording their limited rights; with others,
   again, there are no written engagements at all. Some have
   fought with us and come out of the struggle without dishonour.
   Some pay tribute; others pay none. Their extent and power vary
   as greatly as their political status. The Nizam of Haidarabad
   governs a kingdom of 80,000 square miles and 10,000,000
   inhabitants. Some of the petty chieftains of Kathiawar
   exercise authority over only a few acres. It is, however,
   necessary to draw a line sharply circumscribing the native
   states, as a class, from British territory. Every native chief
   possesses a certain measure of local authority, which is not
   derivative but inherent. English control, when and as
   exercised, is not so much of an administrative as of a
   diplomatic nature. In Anglo-Indian terminology this shade of
   meaning is expressed by the word 'political.' … As a general
   proposition, and excepting the quite insignificant states, it
   may be stated that the government is carried on not only in
   the name but also by the initiative of the native chief.
{1748}
   At all the large capitals, and at certain centres round which
   minor states are grouped, a British officer is stationed under
   the style of Resident or Agent. Through him all diplomatic
   affairs are conducted. He is at once an ambassador and a
   controller. His duty is to represent the majesty of the
   suzerain power, to keep a watchful eye upon abuses, and to
   encourage reforms."

      _J. S. Cotton,
      Colonies and Dependencies,
      part 1, chapter 3._

   "The supremacy of the British Government over all the Native
   States in India was declared in 1877, in a more emphatic form
   than it had received before, by the assumption by the Queen of
   the title of Kaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. No such
   gathering of chiefs and princes has taken place in historical
   times as that seen at Delhi in January, 1877, when the rulers
   of all the principal States of India formally acknowledged
   their dependence on the British Crown. The political effect of
   the assertion of the supremacy of the paramount power, thus
   formally made for the first time in India, has been marked and
   extremely important."

      _Sir J. Strachey,
      India,
      lecture 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Historical Sketch of the Native States of India._

INDIA: A. D. 1878-1881.
   The second Afghan War.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
   Recent Viceroys.

   On the defeat of the Conservative Beaconsfield Ministry in
   England, in 1880, Lord Lytton resigned the Viceroyalty and was
   succeeded by the Marquis of Ripon, who gave place in turn to
   the Marquis of Dufferin in 1884. In 1888, the Marquis of
   Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin, and was himself succeeded
   in 1893 by Sir Henry Norman.

INDIA: A. D. 1893.
   Suspension of the free coinage of silver.

   In June, 1893, the Indian Government, with the approval of the
   British Cabinet, stopped the free coinage of silver, with a
   view to the introduction of a gold standard. The Government,
   it was announced, while stopping the coinage of the declining
   metal for private persons, would continue on its own account
   to coin rupees in exchange for gold at a ratio then fixed at
   sixteen pence sterling per rupee. "The closing of the mints of
   British India to the coinage of silver coins of
   full-debt-paying power is the most momentous event in the
   monetary history of the present century. It is the final and
   disastrous blow to the use of silver as a measure of value and
   as money of full-debt-paying power, and the relegation of it
   to the position of a subsidiary, or token metal. It is the
   culmination of the evolution from a silver to a gold standard
   which has been progressing with startling rapidity in recent
   years. … The remarkable series of events which have
   characterized, or made manifest, this evolution from a silver
   to a gold standard are nearly all condensed in the brief
   period of twenty years, and are probably without a parallel in
   ancient or modern monetary history. … With the single
   exception of England, all Europe forty years ago had the
   silver standard, not only legally but actually—silver coins
   constituting the great bulk of the money of actual
   transactions. To-day, not a mint in Europe is open to the
   coinage of full-debt-paying silver coins, and the gateways of
   the Orient have been closed against it. Twenty years ago one
   ounce of gold exchanged in the markets of the world for
   fifteen and one-half ounces of silver; to-day, one ounce of
   gold will buy nearly thirty ounces of silver. … There is a
   general impression that silver has been the money of India
   from remote generations. This is a fallacy. It has not been a
   great many years since India adopted the silver standard. The
   ancient money of the Hindoos was gold, which in 1818 was
   supplemented by silver, but gold coins remained legal tender
   until 1835, when silver was made the sole standard of value
   and legal tender money in British India, and gold was
   demonetized. … During the last fifty odd years, India has
   absorbed vast quantities of silver."

      _E. O. Leech,
      The Doom of Silver
      (The Forum, August, 1893)._

   ----------INDIA: End--------

INDIAN EMPIRE, The Order of the.

   An Order instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

   ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: Start--------

INDIAN TERRITORY: 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

INDIAN TERRITORY: A. D. 1824.
   Set off from Arkansas Territory.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

   ----------INDIAN TERRITORY: End--------

INDIANA.
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      ALLEGHANS, and DELAWARES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1700-1735.
   Occupation by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

INDIANA: A. D. 1765.
   Possession taken by the English.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

INDIANA: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

INDIANA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and
   annexation to the Kentucky district of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUEST.

INDIANA: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Metropotamia,
   Illinoia and Polypotamia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

INDIANA: A. D. 1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Connecticut,
   ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

INDIANA: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

INDIANA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian War.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

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

INDIANA: A. D. 1800.
   The Territory of Indiana organized.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

{1749}

INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
   Successive partitions of the Territory.
   Michigan and Illinois detached.
   The remaining Indiana admitted as a State.

   "Indiana Territory as originally organized [in 1800] …
   included the county of Knox, upon the Wabash, from which has
   sprung the State of Indiana; the county of St. Clair, on the
   Upper Mississippi, or Illinois River, from which has sprung
   the State of Illinois; and the county of Wayne, upon the
   Detroit River, from which has sprung the State of Michigan.
   … At this time, the inhabitants contained in all of them did
   not amount to more than 5,640 souls, while the aggregate
   number of the Indian tribes within the extreme limits of the
   territory was more than 100,000. … By successive treaties,
   the Indian title was extinguished gradually to all the country
   lying upon the waters of the White River, and upon all the
   lower tributaries of the Wabash, upon the Little Wabash, the
   Kaskaskia, and east of the Mississippi, below the mouth of the
   Illinois. Thus, before the close of the year 1805, nearly all
   the southern half of the present State of Indiana, and one
   third of the State of Illinois, was open to the advance of the
   enterprising pioneer. … In 1807, the Federal government, in
   like manner, purchased from the Indians extensive regions west
   of Detroit River, and within the present State of Michigan,
   far beyond the limits of the white settlements in that
   quarter. Meantime, the settlements formerly comprised in Wayne
   county, having increased in inhabitants and importance, had
   been erected into a separate territorial government, known and
   designated as the 'Territory of Michigan.' On the 1st of July,
   1805, the territory entered upon the first grade of
   territorial government, under the provisions of the ordinance
   of 1787; and William Hull, formerly a lieutenant in the
   Revolutionary army, was made the first governor. … Detroit
   … was made the seat of the territorial government. … By
   the close of the year 1808, the Indiana Territory east of the
   Wabash had received such an increase in numbers that it was
   desirable to assume the second grade of territorial
   government. Having a population of 5,000 free white males,
   Congress, with a view to a future state government, by an act
   approved February 3d, 1809, restricted its limits, and
   authorized a territorial Legislature. … The Indiana
   Territory, from this time, was bounded on the west by a line
   extending up the middle of the Wabash, from its mouth to
   Vincennes, and thence by a meridian due north to the southern
   extremity of Lake Michigan. On the north, it was bounded by
   the southern line of the Michigan Territory. That portion west
   of the Wabash was erected into a separate territorial
   government of the first grade, known and designated as the
   'Illinois Territory.' The inhabitants of the Indiana Territory
   soon began to augment more rapidly. … In 1810 the people had
   increased in numbers to 24,500, and in the newly-erected
   Territory of Illinois there was an aggregate of 12,300
   persons." In 1816 "it was ascertained that the Indiana
   Territory possessed a population which entitled it to an
   independent state government. Congress authorized the election
   of a convention to form a state Constitution," and "the new
   'State of Indiana' was formally admitted into the Union on the
   19th of April, 1816." Two years later, on the 3d of December,
   1818, the Territory of Illinois was similarly transformed and
   became one of the states of the Union.

      _J. W. Monette,
      The Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
      book 5, chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 31-47._

      _A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 20-26._

      _T. M. Cooley,
      Michigan,
      chapter 8._

INDIANA: A. D. 1811.
   General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
   The Battle of Tippecanoe.

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

INDIANA: A. D. 1863.
   John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------INDIANS: Start--------

INDIANS:
   American: The Name.

   "As Columbus supposed himself to have landed on an island at
   the extremity of India, he called the natives by the general
   appellation of Indians, which was universally adopted before
   the true nature of his discovery was known, and has since been
   extended to all the aboriginals of the New World."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Spanish writers from the outset, beginning with Columbus
   in his letters, call the natives of America, Indians, and
   their English translators do the same. So, too, Richard Eden,
   the earliest English writer on American travel, applies the
   name to the natives of Peru and Mexico. It is used in the same
   way, both in translations and original accounts, during the
   rest of the century, but it is always limited to those races
   with whom the Spaniards were in contact. In its wider and
   later application the word does not seem to have established
   itself in English till the next century. The earliest instance
   I can find, where it is applied to the natives of North
   America generally in any original work, is by Hakluyt. In 1587
   he translated Laudonnière's 'History of the French Colony in
   Florida,' and dedicated his translation to Sir Walter Raleigh.
   In this dedication he once uses the term Indian for the
   natives of North America. Heriot and the other writers who
   describe the various attempts at settlement in Virginia during
   the sixteenth century, invariably call the natives 'savages.'
   Perhaps the earliest instance where an English writer uses the
   name Indian specially to describe the occupants of the land
   afterwards colonized by the English is in the account of
   Archer's voyage to Virginia in 1602. This account, written by
   James Rosier, is published in Purchas (volume iv. b. viii.).
   From that time onward the use of the term in the wider sense
   becomes more common. We may reasonably infer that the use of
   it was an indication of the growing knowledge of the fact that
   the lands conquered by the Spaniards and those explored by the
   English formed one continent."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      appendix A._

INDIANS: The tribes and families.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

   ----------INDIANS: End--------

INDICTIONS, The.

   The indiction "was a cycle of 15 years, used only by the
   Romans, for appointing the times of certain public taxes; as
   appears from the title in the Code, 'De tributo indicto.' It
   was established by Constantine, A. D. 312, in the room of the
   heathen Olympiads; and was used in the acts of the General
   Councils, Emperors, and Popes."

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume 1, book 1._

   "The indictions consisted of a revolution of 15 years, which
   are separately reckoned as indiction 1, indiction 2, &c., up
   to 15; when they recommence with indiction 1. … Doubt exists
   as to the commencement of the indictions; some writers
   assigning the first indiction to the year 312; the greater
   number to the year 313; others to 314; whilst some place it
   in the year 315.
{1750}
   In 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' the year 313 is fixed upon
   as that of the first indiction. There are four descriptions of
   indictions. The first is that of Constantinople, which was
   instituted by Constantine in A. D. 312, and began on the 1st
   of September. The second, and more common in England and
   France, was the Imperial or Cæsarean indiction, which began on
   the 24th of September. The third kind of indiction is called
   the Roman or Pontifical, from its being generally used in
   papal bulls, at least from the ninth to the fourteenth
   century; it commences on the 25th of December or 1st of
   January, accordingly as either of these days was considered
   the first of the year. The fourth kind of indiction, which is
   to be found in the register of the parliaments of Paris, began
   in the month of October. … After the 12th century, the
   indiction was rarely mentioned in public instruments. … But
   in France, in private charters, and in ecclesiastical
   documents, the usage continued until the end of the 15th
   century."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      pages 6-7._

      _ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17._

INDO-EUROPEAN.
INDO-GERMANIC.

      See ARYAN.

INDULGENCE: Declarations of: by Charles II.

         See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

INDULGENCE: By James II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

INDULGENCES: The Doctrine.
   Tetzel's sale.
   Luther's attack.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517; and 1517.

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

INE, Laws of (or Dooms of).

      See DOOMS OF INE.

INEXPIABLE WAR, The.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

INFALLIBILITY, Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

INGÆVONES, The.

      See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

INGAGO, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

INGE I.,
   King of Norway, A. D. 1157-1161.

   Inge I. (called the Good), King of Sweden, 1090-1112.

   Inge II., King of Norway, 1205-1207.

   Inge II., King of Sweden, 1118-1129.

INGENUI.
LIBERTINI.

   "Free men [among the Romans] might be either persons born free
   (ingenui) and who had never been in slavery to a Roman, or
   persons who had once been slaves but had been emancipated
   (libertini)."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

INI, King of West Saxons, A. D. 688-726.

INIS-FAIL.
INIS-EALGA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

      See REFERENDUM.

INKERMANN, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

INNOCENT II., Pope, A. D. 1130-1143.
   Innocent III., Pope, 1198-1216.

   Innocent IV., Pope, 1243-1254.

   Innocent V., Pope, 1276, January to June.

   Innocent VI., Pope, 1352-1362.

   Innocent VII., Pope, 1404-1406.

   Innocent VIII., Pope, 1484-1492.

   Innocent IX., Pope, 1591, October to December.

   Innocent X., Pope, 1644-1655.

   Innocent XI., Pope, 1676-1689.

   Innocent XII., Pope, 1691-1700.

   Innocent XIII., Pope, 1721-1724.

INNUITS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

   ----------INQUISITION: Start----------

INQUISITION, The: A. D. 1203-1525.
   Origin of the Holy Office.
   St. Dominic and the Dominicans.
   The Episcopal Inquisition.
   The Apostolical or Papal Inquisition.
   The Spanish Inquisition and its terrible rule.
   Estimate of victims.
   Expulsion of Jews and Moors.

   "In the earlier ages of the Church, the definition of heresy
   had been committed to episcopal authority. But the cognisance
   of heretics and the determination of their punishment remained
   in the hands of secular magistrates. At the end of the 12th
   century the wide diffusion of the Albigensian heterodoxy
   through Languedoc and Northern Italy alarmed the chiefs of
   Christendom, and furnished the Papacy with a good pretext for
   extending its prerogatives. Innocent III. in 1203 empowered
   two French Cistercians, Pierre de Castelnau and Raoul, to
   preach against the heretics of Provence. In the following year
   he ratified this commission by a Bull, which censured the
   negligence and coldness of the bishops, appointed the Abbot of
   Citeaux Papal delegate in matters of heresy, and gave him
   authority to judge and punish misbelievers. This was the first
   germ of the Holy Office as a separate Tribunal. … Being a
   distinct encroachment of the Papacy upon the episcopal
   jurisdiction and prerogatives, the Inquisition met at first
   with some opposition from the bishops. The people for whose
   persecution it was designed, and at whose expense it carried
   on its work, broke into rebellion; the first years of its
   annals were rendered illustrious by the murder of one of its
   founders, Pierre de Castelnau. He was canonised, and became
   the first Saint of the Inquisition. … In spite of
   opposition, the Papal institution took root and flourished.
   Philip Augustus responded to the appeals of Innocent; and a
   crusade began against the Albigenses, in which Simon de
   Montfort won his sinister celebrity. During those bloody wars
   the Inquisition developed itself as a force of formidable
   expansive energy. Material assistance to the cause was
   rendered by a Spanish monk of the Augustine order, who settled
   in Provence on his way back from Rome in 1206. Domenigo de
   Guzman, known to universal history as S. Dominic, organised a
   new militia for the service of the orthodox Church between the
   years 1215 and 1219. His order, called the Order of the
   Preachers, was originally designed to repress heresy and
   confirm the faith by diffusing Catholic doctrine and
   maintaining the creed in its purity. It consisted of three
   sections: the Preaching Friars; nuns living in conventual
   retreat; and laymen, entitled the Third Order of Penitence or
   the Militia of Christ, who in after years were merged with the
   Congregation of S. Peter Martyr, and corresponded to the
   familiars of the Inquisition. Since the Dominicans were
   established in the heat and passion of a crusade against
   heresy, by a rigid Spaniard who employed his energies in
   persecuting misbelievers, they assumed at the outset a
   belligerent and inquisitorial attitude. Yet it is not strictly
   accurate to represent S. Dominic himself as the first Grand
   Inquisitor.
{1751}
   The Papacy proceeded with caution in its design of forming a
   tribunal dependent on the Holy See and independent of the
   bishops. Papal Legates with plenipotentiary authority were
   sent to Languedoc, and decrees were issued against the
   heretics, in which the Inquisition was rather implied than
   directly named; nor can I find that S. Dominic, though he
   continued to be the soul of the new institution until his
   death, in 1221, obtained the title of Inquisitor.
   Notwithstanding this vagueness, the Holy Office may be said to
   have been founded by S. Dominic; and it soon became apparent
   that the order he had formed was destined to monopolise its
   functions. … This Apostolical Inquisition was at once
   introduced into Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches of Treviso.
   The extreme rigour of its proceedings, the extortions of
   monks, and the violent resistance offered by the communes, led
   to some relaxation of its original constitution. More
   authority had to be conceded to the bishops; and the right of
   the Inquisitors to levy taxes on the people was modified. Yet
   it retained its true form of a Papal organ, superseding the
   episcopal prerogatives, and overriding the secular
   magistrates, who were bound to execute its biddings. As such
   it was admitted into Tuscany, and established in Aragon.
   Venice received it in 1289, with certain reservations that
   placed its proceedings under the control of Doge and Council.
   In Languedoc, the country of its birth, it remained rooted at
   Toulouse and Carcassonne; but the Inquisition did not extend
   its authority over central and northern France. In Paris its
   functions were performed by the Sorbonne. Nor did it obtain a
   footing in England, although the statute 'De Haeretico
   Comburendo,' passed in 1401 at the instance of the higher
   clergy, sanctioned the principles on which it existed. … The
   revival of the Holy Office on a new and far more murderous
   basis, took place in 1484. We have seen that hitherto there
   had been two types of inquisition into heresy. The first,
   which remained in force up to the year 1203, may be called the
   episcopal. The second was the Apostolical or Dominican: it
   transferred this jurisdiction from the bishops to the Papacy,
   who employed the order of S. Dominic for the special service
   of the tribunal instituted by the Imperial Decrees of
   Frederick II. The third deserves no other name than Spanish,
   though, after it had taken shape in Spain, it was transferred
   to Portugal, applied in all the Spanish and Portuguese
   colonies, and communicated with some modifications to Italy
   and the Netherlands. Both the second and the third types of
   inquisition into heresy were Spanish inventions, patented by
   the Roman Pontiffs and monopolised by the Dominican order. But
   the third and final form of the Holy Office in Spain
   distinguished itself by emancipation from Papal and Royal
   control, and by a specific organisation which rendered it the
   most formidable of irresponsible engines in the annals of
   religious institutions. … Castile had hitherto been free
   from the pest. But the conditions of that kingdom offered a
   good occasion for its introduction at the date which I have
   named. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Castile acquired
   vast wealth and influence. Few families but felt the burden of
   their bonds and mortgages. Religious fanaticism, social
   jealousy, and pecuniary distress exasperated the Christian
   population; and as early as the year 1391, more than 5,000
   Jews were massacred in one popular uprising. The Jews, in
   fear, adopted Christianity. It is said that in the 15th
   century the population counted some million of
   converts—called New Christians, or, in contempt, Marranos: a
   word which may probably be derived from the Hebrew Maranatha.
   These converted Jews, by their ability and wealth, crept into
   high offices of state, obtained titles of aristocracy, and
   founded noble houses. … It was a Sicilian Inquisitor, Philip
   Barberis, who suggested to Ferdinand the Catholic the
   advantage he might secure by extending the Holy Office to
   Castile. Ferdinand avowed his willingness; and Sixtus IV. gave
   the project his approval in 1478. But it met with opposition
   from the gentler-natured Isabella. … Then Isabella yielded;
   and in 1481 the Holy Office was founded at Seville. It began
   its work by publishing a comprehensive edict against all New
   Christians suspected of Judaising, which offence was so
   constructed as to cover the most innocent observance of
   national customs. Resting from labour on Saturday; performing
   ablutions at stated times; refusing to eat pork or puddings
   made of blood; and abstaining from wine, sufficed to colour
   accusations of heresy. … Upon the publication of this edict,
   there was an exodus of Jews by thousands into the fiefs of
   independent vassals of the crown—the Duke of Medina Sidonia,
   the Marquis of Cadiz, and the Count of Arcos. All emigrants
   were 'ipso facto' declared heretics by the Holy Office. During
   the first year after its foundation, Seville beheld 298
   persons burned alive, and 79 condemned to perpetual
   imprisonment. A large square stage of stone, called the
   Quemadero, was erected for the execution of those multitudes
   who were destined to suffer death by hanging or by flame. In
   the same year, 2,000 were burned and 17,000 condemned to
   public penitence, while even a larger number were burned in
   effigy, in other parts of the kingdom. … In 1483 Thomas of
   Torquemada was nominated Inquisitor General for Castile and
   Aragon. Under his rule a Supreme Council was established, over
   which he presided for life. … In 1484 a General Council was
   held, and the constitution of the Inquisition was established
   by articles. … The two most formidable features of the
   Inquisition as thus constituted were the exclusion of the
   bishops from its tribunal and the secrecy of its procedure.
   … In the autumn of 1484 the Inquisition was introduced into
   Aragon; and Saragossa became its headquarters in that State.
   … The Spanish Inquisition was now firmly grounded. Directed
   by Torquemada, it began to encroach upon the crown, to insult
   the episcopacy, to defy the Papacy, to grind the Commons, and
   to outrage by its insolence the aristocracy. … The Holy
   Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions. It
   arrogated to its tribunal crimes of usury, bigamy, blasphemous
   swearing, and unnatural vice, which appertained by right to
   the secular courts. It depopulated Spain by the extermination
   and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects
   during the first 139 years of its existence. … Torquemada
   was the genius of evil who created and presided over this foul
   instrument of human crime and folly.
{1752}
   During his eighteen years of administration, reckoning from
   1480 to 1498, he sacrificed, according to Llorente's
   calculation, above 114,000 victims, of whom 10,220 were burned
   alive, 6,860 burned in effigy, and 97,000 condemned to
   perpetual imprisonment or public penitence. He, too, it was
   who in 1492 compelled Ferdinand to drive the Jews from his
   dominions. … The edict of expulsion was issued on the last
   of March. Before the last of July all Jews were sentenced to
   depart, carrying no gold or silver with them. They disposed of
   their lands, houses, and goods for next to nothing, and went
   forth to die by thousands on the shores of Africa and Italy.
   … The exodus of the Jews was followed in 1502 by a similar
   exodus of Moors from Castile, and in 1524 by an exodus of
   Mauresques from Aragon. To compute the loss of wealth and
   population inflicted upon Spain by these mad edicts would be
   impossible. … After Torquemada, Diego Deza reigned as second
   Inquisitor General from 1498 to 1507. In these years,
   according to the same calculation, 2,592 were burned alive,
   896 burned in effigy, 34,952 condemned to prison or public
   penitence. Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros followed between 1507
   and 1517. The victims of this decade were 3,564 burned alive.
   … Adrian, Bishop of Tortosa, tutor to Charles V., and
   afterwards Pope, was Inquisitor General between 1516 and 1525.
   Castile, Aragon, and Catalonia, at this epoch, simultaneously
   demanded a reform of the Holy Office from their youthful
   sovereign. But Charles refused, and the tale of Adrian's
   administration was 1,620 burned alive, 560 burned in effigy,
   21,845 condemned to prison or public penitence. The total,
   during 43 years, between 1481 and 1525, amounted to 234,526,
   including all descriptions of condemned heretics. These
   figures are of necessity vague, for the Holy Office left but
   meagre records of its proceedings.".

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 3 (part 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lea,
      History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages._

      _J. A. Llorente,
      History of the Inquisition,
      chapters 1-12._

      _W. H. Rule,
      History of the Inquisition,
      chapters 1-14._

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 7 and 17._

      See, also,
      JEWS: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES; and MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1521-1568.
   Introduction and work in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555; 1559-1562; and 1568.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1546.
   Successful revolt against the Holy Office at Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1550-1816.
   Establishment in Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1814-1820.
   Restoration and abolition in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

   ----------INQUISITION: End----------

INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER).

INSUBRIANS AND CENOMANIANS, The.

   "North of the Po, in the country about Milan, dwelt [3d
   century, B. C.] the great people of the Insubrians, while to
   the east of these on the Mincio and the Adige lay the
   Cenomanians; but these tribes, little inclined, seemingly, to
   make common cause with their countrymen [the Boian and
   Senonian Gauls] remained neutral in all the hostilities
   against Rome." But the Insubrians were attacked and subdued,
   B. C. 223.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 295-191.

INTERDICTS.

      See EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

INTERIM OF CHARLES V., The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

"INTERNATIONAL," The.

   "The year of the London Exhibition, and under the auspices of
   the Emperor Napoleon III., a number of Paris working-men
   visited the English capital. They were welcomed by a London
   Committee of artisans, and on this occasion the wish for a
   closer union between the labourers of different countries was
   expressed on both sides. Then the Polish insurrection broke
   out, and masses of London and Paris working-men took steps
   simultaneously to manifest sympathy with the insurgents. A
   deputation was again sent over from Paris, and the result of
   this measure was a resolution to delay preparations for
   co-operation no longer. For some time the international idea
   was carefully given prominence in labour circles in various
   countries, and on September 28th, 1864, a congress of many
   nations was held in St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
   presidency of Professor Beesly. A committee was appointed,
   representing England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and
   Switzerland, for the drawing up of statutes for an
   International Working Men's Association, whose seat should be
   London. … It was not long before the International
   Association became a power which caused alarm to not a few
   European Governments."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 13._

INTERREGNUM, The Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

INTERREX.

   A temporary king, in ancient Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 509; also, SENATE, ROMAN.

INTRANSIGENTISTS.

   In European politics, the extreme radicals—the uncompromising
   and irreconcilable factions—are frequently so called.

INVERLOCHY, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

INVESTITURES, The War of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

INVISIBLE EMPIRE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

IONA, Monastery and Schools of.

      See COLUMBAN CHURCH;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

IONIA.

   The Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor bore collectively
   the name Ionia, though no national union was signified by the
   designation.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES, and after.

IONIAN (DELIAN) CONFEDERACY, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

   ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: Start--------

IONIAN ISLANDS:
   To 1814.
   Under Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and French rule.

   "Acarnania, as a glance at the map will show, is the most
   western part of continental Greece. But in close proximity to
   the mainland there stretch along the west coast a number of
   islands, some of them of considerable area, the history and
   traditions of which are inseparably intertwined with those of
   Hellas. They have long been known as the Ionian Islands,
   deriving the name, in all likelihood, from the sea in which
   they are situated; for their ancient inhabitants were not, so
   far as is known, of Ionic descent.
{1753}
   They are very numerous, but only six of them are of
   any historic importance. The most northerly is Corcyra
   (Corfu), a long, narrow island, which extends like a lofty
   breakwater in front of the coast of Epirus." The other five
   are Paxos (Paxo), Leucadia (Santa Maura), Cephallenia
   (Cephalonia), Ithaca (Thiaki), Zacynthus (Zante), and Cythera
   (Cerigo). "Though not the largest, Corcyra is the most
   populous and important of the islands. It has a place in the
   mythic tradition, and a still greater one in the ascertained
   history, of ancient Hellas.

      See KORKYRA;
      also, GREECE: B. C. 435-432, and 432.

   … With the other islands in the Ionian Sea, Corcyra passed
   under the dominion of Rome, and subsequently became part of
   the Eastern Empire. In 540 A. D. the fleet of the Gothic
   leader Totila ravaged the coasts of the island, but did not
   capture the city, the fortifications of which had been greatly
   strengthened by the Romans. Five centuries later the island
   and its capital fell into the hands of a more formidable
   invader—the Norman Robert Guiscard, who captured them on his
   way from Italy to prosecute that invasion of the Byzantine
   Empire which was at one time so nearly attended with success.
   The first Norman supremacy did not last long; but in 1144 A.
   D., Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, took occasion of a
   rising of the Corcyreans (or, as they now began to be called,
   the Corfiotes) against the Byzantine Emperor Manuel to
   introduce a garrison into the city. Four years later Manuel,
   who was an energetic and warlike prince, laid siege to Corfu,
   and was assisted by the Venetians. The Norman garrison offered
   a most determined resistance, but were ultimately obliged to
   surrender on honourable terms. After the overthrow of the
   Byzantine emperors, in the early part of the 13th century,
   Corfu, with the other Ionian Islands, became part of the
   dominions of the Venetian republic, and so continued, with
   brief intervals, for nearly 500 years. The Venetian rule was
   on the whole favourable to the material prosperity of the
   island: it was admirably cultivated, and became the centre of
   a large commerce. Unlike most of the other possessions of
   Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, Corfu never fell into the
   hands of the Turks. They overran and ravaged the island in
   1537, carrying off, according to their custom, many of the
   young women and children as slaves; and they besieged the
   capital, but its fortifications had been much strengthened by
   the Venetians, and the garrison was able to offer a successful
   resistance. In 1716 another memorable siege [see TURKS: A. D.
   1714-1718] took place, during the war in which Sultan Achmet
   III. engaged with Austria and the Venetian republic. A large
   Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha beleaguered Corfu; but the
   garrison was commanded by a distinguished soldier, Count
   Schulemburg, who baffled an the efforts of the Turks, and at
   last compelled them to withdraw to their ships after they had
   lost 15,000 men. By the Treaty of Campo Formio, dictated in
   1797 to Austria by Napoleon after his marvellous Italian
   campaign, the Ionian Islands were transferred to France [see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER)], the rest of the Venetian
   territories falling to the share of Austria. The French
   garrisons were, however, expelled in 1799 by a Russo-Turkish
   expedition, and the islands constituted a republic [called the
   Republic of the Seven Islands]. But in 1807, when the course
   of events had changed Russia into an ally of the French
   emperor, the latter again obtained possession of the islands
   under the Treaty of Tilsit. The English, being masters of the
   Mediterranean, soon drove the French out of all the islands
   except Corfu. This was under French rule till 1814; and it is
   only fair to say that they did much for the improvement of the
   island, constructing some substantial roads in the interior.
   In 1814, during the general cataclysm of the gigantic empire
   of Napoleon, the French garrison was driven out of the island
   after a gallant resistance, and in the following year the
   Ionian Islands were reconstituted a republic under British
   protection and supremacy."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      chapter 4._

IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
   The British protectorate.
   Its relinquishment.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Greece.

   "These seven islands [the Ionian] were constituted a sort of
   republic or commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna [1815]. But
   they were consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain;
   which had the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great
   Britain used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was
   generally a military man, and whose office combined the duties
   of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Governor. The little
   republic had a Senate of six members and a Legislative
   Assembly of forty members. It seems almost a waste of words to
   say that the islanders were not content with British
   government. For good or ill, the Hellenes, wherever they are
   found, are sure to be filled with an impassioned longing for
   Hellenic independence. The people of the Ionian Islands were
   eager to be allowed to enter into one system with the kingdom
   of Greece. It was idle to try to amuse them by telling them
   they constituted an independent republic, and were actually
   governing themselves, … while they saw themselves presided
   over by an English Lord High Commissioner who was also the
   Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British army garrisoned in
   their midst. … It is certain that they got a great deal of
   material benefit from the presence of the energetic
   road-making British power. But they wanted to be, above all
   things, Greek. … Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton [who was
   then—1858—Secretary for the Colonies in the British
   Government] … thought the causes of the complaints and the
   dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and he resolved
   on sending a statesman of distinction out to the islands to
   make the enquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been for some years out of
   office. He had been acting as an independent supporter of Lord
   Palmerston's Government. It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer
   Lytton that Mr. Gladstone was the man best fitted to conduct
   the enquiry. … He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the
   office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian
   Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and its duties."
   Arriving in Corfu in November, 1858, "he called together the
   Senate, and endeavoured to satisfy them as to the real nature
   of his mission. He explained that he had not come there to
   discuss the propriety of maintaining the English protectorate,
   but only to enquire into the manner in which the just claims
   of the Ionian Islands might be secured by means of that
   protectorate."
{1754}
   But "the population of the islands persisted in regarding him,
   not as the commissioner of a Conservative English Government,
   but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' He was received wherever
   he went with the honours due to a liberator. … The visit of
   Mr. Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been intended to
   fulfil, had the effect of making them [the Ionians] agitate
   more strenuously than ever for annexation to the kingdom of
   Greece. Their wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A new
   Lord High Commissioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's
   return. … Still … the idea held ground that sooner or
   later Great Britain would give up the charge of the islands. A
   few years after, an opportunity occurred for making the
   cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy German king
   Otho [see GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862], and on the advice chiefly
   of England they elected as sovereign a brother of the Princess
   of Wales. … The second son of the King of Denmark was made
   King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on behalf of the
   English Government, then [1862] handed over to the kingdom of
   Greece the islands of which Great Britain had had so long to
   bear the unwilling charge."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of our Own Times,
      chapter 39 (volume 3)._

   ----------IONIAN ISLANDS: End--------

IONIAN REVOLT, The.

   See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

IONIANS, The.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

   "There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in
   776 B. C., besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades,
   twelve Ionian cities of note on or near the coast of Asia
   Minor, besides a few others less important. Enumerated from
   south to north, they stand—Milêtus, Myûs, Priênê, Samos,
   Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios, Klazomenæ,
   Phôkæa. … Milêtus, Myûs and Priênê were situated on or near
   the productive plain of the river Mæander; while Ephesus was
   in like manner planted near the mouth of the Kaïster … :
   Kolophon is only a very few miles north of the same river.
   Possessing the best means of communication with the interior,
   these towns seem to have thriven with greater rapidity than
   the rest; and they, together with the neighbouring island of
   Samos, constituted in early times the strength of the
   Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony. The situation of the sacred precinct of
   Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated) on the north
   side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and between
   Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed the
   primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became
   gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site
   with reference to all the twelve. … Moreover, it seems that
   the Pan-Ionic festival [the celebration of which constituted
   the Amphiktyony], though still formally continued, had lost
   its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become
   practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the
   Ephesia, near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more
   attractive place of meeting."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece
      part 2, chapter 13 (volume 3)_.

   ----------IOWA: Start--------

IOWA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

IOWA: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IOWA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Joined to Michigan Territory;
   then to Wisconsin;
   then separately organized.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

IOWA: A. D. 1845.
   Admission into the Union, with Florida for a slave-state
   counterweight.

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

   ----------IOWA: End--------

IOWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

IPSUS, Battle of (B. C. 301).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

IQUIQUE, Battle of (1891).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

IRACA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

IRAK.

   At the time of the Mahometan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia
   occupied the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered by
   the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of the Arabs, as
   distinguished from Irak of the Persians, which corresponded
   somewhat nearly to the modern kingdom of Persia. … Irak of
   Arabia was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, and
   the wandering Arabs who roamed over the broad desert were
   tributary to Persia when they pitched their tents on the
   eastern side, and to Rome when sojourning on the side towards
   Syria; though they were at no time trusty allies or subjects.
   The region of Irak contains many relics of a former
   civilization; there are the mounds that mark the site of old
   Babylon."

      _A. Gilman,
      Story of the Saracens,
      pages 226-227._

IRAN, Table-Land of.

   "Between the valley of the Indus and the land of the Euphrates
   and Tigris, bounded on the south by the ocean and the Persian
   Gulf, on the north by the broad steppes which the Oxus and
   Jaxartes vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and
   the valley of the Aras [embracing modern Persia, Baluchistan,
   Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan], lies the table-land of
   Iran. Rising to an average height of 4,000 feet above the
   level of the sea, it forms an oblong, the length of which from
   east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. … As far
   back as our information extends, we find the table-land of
   Iran occupied by a group of nations closely related to each
   other, and speaking dialects of the same language."

       _M. Duncker,
       History of Antiquity,
       book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also, ARYANS.

IRDJAR, Russian defeat at.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

   ----------IRELAND: Start--------


   A Logical Outline of Irish History

   In Which The Dominant Conditions And
   Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

   Physical or material. (Red)
   Ethnological. (Blue)
   Social and political. (Green)
   Intellectual, moral and religious. (Tan)
   Foreign. (Black)


(Blue)
   In the history of the two islands which form the United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is a contrast of
   fortune which nothing will account for save unexplainable
   qualities of race. The Celtic warmth prevailing on one side of
   St. George's Channel has worked ill in politics as against the
   Teutonic coolness on the other; and it is probable that no
   change of circumstances or conditions would have altered
   greatly the relations of the two peoples. In their situation
   as close neighbors, it was inevitable that one should dominate
   the other. It seems to have been no less inevitable that the
   mastery should settle where it did; and simply by the force of
   more masterful qualities in the English race.

(Red)
   If those who dwelt nearer to the mainland of Europe held
   advantages over those of the farther island, they took nothing
   from them in the earlier generations, but were overleaped and
   passed by when the first movements of Christianity and
   Christian culture into the West began; and it was Ireland, not
   England, for three centuries, which nourished the purest faith
   and the highest civilization of the age. If other advantages
   belonged to the island which was richer in iron and coal, the
   English were not helped by them to an ascendancy which they
   had won before the mining of their riches began.

(Green)
   In the early years of the eleventh century, when most of the
   island had submitted to the rule of Brian Born, and when he
   had shaken the grasp of the intruding Danes on the seaports of
   the eastern and southern coasts, the state and prospects of
   Ireland would have seemed to be well-nigh as good as those of
   England at the same time. But that appearance vanished soon,
   and it never returned. Among the English, the tendency toward
   national union grew stronger with every generation; among the
   Irish it got no growth. The political genius of the race,
   remarkable to the present day in municipal politics, but
   rarely successful in the greater political arenas, has always
   been tribal or provincial in its range, and wanting in a
   national comprehensiveness.

(Tan)
   The Norman conquest of England was helpful to the
   consolidation of an English kingdom. The Anglo-Norman conquest
   of Ireland occurring a century later, promoted, on the
   contrary, the divisions and disorders of the island. It
   brought a new faction into Irish quarrels, instead of a new
   sovereign to extinguish them. It was complete enough to forbid
   the growth of order from any native root of influence or
   authority, but not complete enough to carry order with itself.
   In the full sense of the term it was never a conquest. It was
   rather a persistent invasion, continued and repeated through
   more than five centuries. In every generation it inflamed anew
   the fierce animosity which an incomplete conquest will not
   suffer to die out, until the very descendants of the older
   intruders were infected with the native hatred of their
   later-coming kindred. After four hundred years of inconclusive
   conflict, the English were hardly nearer to mastery, the Irish
   hardly nearer to submission, than at first.

   Then arose between them a new difference to embitter their
   antagonism. The Reformation of religion was accepted by one
   race as naturally as it was rejected by the other. But
   Protestantism under English patronage assumed a more hateful
   aspect in Irish eyes, and Irishmen as Papists became doubly
   odious to the English mind. So political hostilities and
   religious enmities fomented one another, from that time, while
   the primitive antagonism of race gave energy to both.

   Under Cromwell and under William of Orange the subjugation was
   completed at last in the spirit of a Protestant crusade, and
   used as crusading victories have been wont to be used. The
   triumphant Church, planting its strong settlements in the
   land, assumed to itself all civil and political rights. Every
   office and every honorable profession were closed against the
   adherents of the defeated faith; its ministrations were
   forbidden; its priests were expelled.

(Green)
   But this was not all. As British commerce grew and British
   industries were built up, they contributed yet another to the
   malign confederacy of passions which oppressed the Irish
   people. The merchant, the manufacturer, the landowner and the
   farmer, on the English side, were banded by common jealousies
   to suppress competition in Ireland. They hindered the
   improvement of its resources and paralyzed its energies by
   atrocious legislation. They reduced its population to
   dependence on the most restricted production, leaving little
   except husbandry for a vocation, and that under grinding
   terms. They created by such measures a nation of peasants, as
   poor and as helpless as serfs, living wretchedly on precarious
   holdings of soil, at the mercy of landlords who regarded them
   with dislike and contempt.

   It was under such crushing conditions as these that Ireland
   remained until near the end of the eighteenth century, always
   hating the oppressors, often resisting the oppression, but
   weakly or rashly, without judgment or enduring resolution.
   Then began a great change in the tenor of her history. Two
   influences of the age came into play, one acting on the
   conscience of the English people, the other on the mind and
   temper of the Irish. One has worked to the yielding of
   justice, the other to the firmer pressing of demands for it.

   At this day it may be said that oppression in Ireland, whether
   religious or political, is wholly and forever extinct; that
   whatever remains in dispute between Celt and Saxon is from
   questions such as rise in every nation, and that the
   bitterness which stays in Anglo-Irish politics is the
   lingering rancor of a hateful past, not quickly to be
   extinguished.

   ----------A Logical Outline of Irish History: End--------

IRELAND:
   The name.

   "Ireland was known by many names from very early ages. Thus,
   in the Celtic it was called Inis-Fall, the isle of destiny;
   Inis-Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody island;
   and Eire, Fodhla, and Banba. By the Greeks it was called
   Ierne, probably from the vernacular name of Eire, by
   inflection Erin; whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of
   Juverna; Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the
   early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, probably
   from its Iberian inhabitants, and the later Romans and
   mediæval writers Scotia, and sometimes Hibernia; and finally
   its name of Ireland was formed by the Anglo-Normans from its
   native name of Eire."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 76, note._

      See, also,
      SCOTLAND: THE NAME;
      and IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

{1755}

IRELAND:
   The primitive inhabitants.

   "The first people … of whose existence in Ireland we can be
   said to know anything are commonly asserted to have been of
   Turanian origin, and are known as 'Formorians.' As far as we
   can gather, they were a dark, low-browed, stunted race,
   although, oddly enough, the word Formorian in early Irish
   legend is always used as synonymous with the word giant. They
   were, at any rate, a race of utterly savage hunters and
   fishermen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, possibly even of the
   use of fire; using the stone hammers or hatchets of which vast
   numbers remain in Ireland to this day, and specimens of which
   may be seen in every museum. How long they held possession no
   one can tell, although Irish philologists believe several
   local Irish names to date from this almost inconceivably
   remote epoch. Perhaps if we think of the Lapps of the present
   day, and picture them wandering about the country, … it will
   give us a fairly good notion of what these very earliest
   inhabitants of Ireland were probably like.

      See FOMORIANS.

   Next followed a Belgic colony, known as the Firbolgs, who
   overran the country, and appear to have been of a somewhat
   higher ethnological grade, although, like the Formorians,
   short, dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were not
   entirely exterminated to make way for the Firbolgs, any more
   than the Firbolgs to make way for the Danaans, Milesians, and
   other successive races; such wholesale exterminations being,
   in fact, very rare, especially in a country which like Ireland
   seems specially laid out by kindly nature for the protection
   of a weaker race struggling in the grip of a stronger one.
   After the Firbolgs, though I should be sorry to be obliged to
   say how long after, fresh and more important tribes of
   invaders began to appear. The first of these were the
   Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the leadership of their
   king Nuad, and took possession of the east of the country.
   These Tuatha-da-Danaans are believed to have been large,
   blue-eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and possibly
   ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' who in years to come
   were destined to work such woe and havoc upon the island. …
   What their end was no man can tell you, save that they, too,
   were, in their turn, conquered by the Milesians or 'Scoti,'
   who next overran the country, giving to it their own name' of
   Scotia, by which name it was known down to the end of the
   twelfth century, and driving the earlier settlers before them,
   who thereupon fled to the hills, and took refuge in the
   forests, whence they emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant
   effect upon their conquerors, as another defeated race did
   upon their conquerors in later days."

      _E. Lawless,
      The Story of Ireland,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

IRELAND:
   Tribes of early Celtic inhabitants.

   "On the northern coast dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern
   county of Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and
   Antrim. Adjoining to the Veniconii, westward, were the Erdini
   or Erpeditani, and next to them the Magnatæ, all in Donegal.
   Farther south were the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo;
   and the Velibori, or Ellebri, in the district between Galway
   and the Shannon. The south-west part of the island, with a
   great portion of the interior, was inhabited by the Iverni,
   who gave name not only to the great river but to the whole
   island, and who may, perhaps, be considered as the aboriginal
   inhabitants. … In the modern counties of Waterford and
   Tipperary, Ptolemy places a tribe called the Usdiæ or Vodiæ,
   according to the variations of the manuscripts. In the modern
   county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and northward from them
   were the Coriondi, in Wicklow; the Menapii, in Dublin; the
   Cauci, on the banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on
   the bay of Dundalk; the Voluntii, in Down; and the Darini,
   bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. Three, at least, of the
   tribes who held the eastern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes,
   the Menapii, and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from
   the opposite shores of Britain."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 2._

IRELAND:
   5th-8th Centuries.
   The coming of St. Patrick and the Christianizing of the Island.
   Its Schools and its Missionaries.

   "Lying on the extreme verge of Europe, the last land then
   known to the adventurous Scandinavian, and beyond which fable
   had scarcely projected its dreams, it was in the fifth century
   since the Redemption that Christianity reached them.
   Patricius, a Celt of Gaul it is said, carried into Erin as a
   slave by one of the Pagan kings, some of whom made military
   expeditions to North and South Britain, and even to the Alps
   and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ireland. Patrick escaped
   from slavery, was educated at Rome, but in mature manhood
   insisted on returning to the place of his bondage, to preach
   Christianity to a people who seem to have exercised over the
   imagination of the Apostle the same spell of sympathy which in
   later times subdued strangers of many nations. He was received
   with extraordinary favour, and before his death nearly the
   whole island had embraced Christianity. The coming of Patrick
   took place in the year of our Lord 432, and he laboured for
   sixty years after; planting churches and schools, rooting out
   the practices and monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the
   people in religion and humanity. It was a noble service, and
   it impressed itself for ever on the memory of the race whom he
   served. … In the succeeding century the Church which he
   planted became possessed by a passion which it has never
   entirely lost, the passion for missionary enterprise. Its
   fathers projected the conversion of the fierce natives of the
   Continent to the new creed of humility and self-denial, and by
   the same humane agents which Patrick had employed in
   Ireland—persuasion and prayer; a task as generous as any of
   which history has preserved the record. In this epoch Ireland
   may, without exaggeration, be said to have been a Christian
   Greece, the nurse of science and civilisation. The Pagan
   annals of the country are overlaid by fable and extravagance,
   but the foundation of Oxford or the mission of St. Augustine
   does not lie more visibly within the boundaries of legitimate
   history than the Irish schools, which attracted students from
   Britain and Gaul, and sent out missionaries through the
   countries now known as Western Europe.

{1756}

   Among the forests of Germany, on the desert shores of the
   Hebrides, in the camp of Alfred, at the court of Charlemagne,
   in the capital of the Christian world, where Michelet
   describes their eloquence as charming the counsellors of the
   Emperor, there might be found the fervid preachers and subtle
   doctors of the Western Isle. It was then that the island won
   the title still fondly cherished, 'insula sanctorum'. The
   venerable Bede describes nobles and students at this epoch as
   quitting the island of Britain to seek education in Ireland,
   and he tells us that the hospitable Celts found them teachers,
   books, food and shelter at the cost of the nation. The school
   at Armagh, where St. Patrick had established the primacy of
   the Church, is reputed to have attracted 7,000 students, and
   there were schools at Lismore, Bangor, Clonmacnoise, and Mayo,
   which rivalled it in importance. Monasteries multiplied in a
   still greater number, and with results as beneficial. …
   Writers who are little disposed to make any other concession
   to Ireland admit that this was a period of extraordinary
   intellectual activity, and of memorable services to
   civilization. The arts, as far as they were the handmaidens of
   religion, attained a surprising development. The illuminated
   copies of the Scripture, the croziers and chalices which have
   come down to us from those days, the Celtic crosses and Celtic
   harps, the bells and tabernacles, are witnesses of a distinct
   and remarkable national culture. The people were still partly
   shepherds and husbandmen, partly soldiers, ruled by the Chief,
   the Brehon, and the Priest. … After this generous work had
   obtained a remarkable success, it was disturbed by contests
   with the Sea Kings. … The Cathedral and city of St. Patrick,
   the schools of Bangor, the cloisters of Clonmacnoise, and many
   more seats of piety and learning, fell into their hands. The
   sacred vessels of the altar were turned into drinking cups,
   and the missals, blazing with precious stones, were torn from
   their costly bindings to furnish ornaments for their sword
   hilts, and gifts to the Scalds who sang their achievements.
   These pagans burned monasteries, sacked churches, and murdered
   women and priests, for plunder or sport. … Before the
   dangers and troubles of a long internecine war, the School of
   the West gradually dwindled away, and it had fallen into
   complete decay before Brian Borhoime, at the beginning of the
   11th century, finally subdued the invaders."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      A Bird's Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 7-12 (or chapter 4, in "Young Ireland")._

   "Ireland, that virgin island on which proconsul never set
   foot, which never knew either the orgies or the exactions of
   Rome, was also the only place in the world of which the Gospel
   took possession without bloodshed. … From the moment that
   this Green Erin, situated at the extremity of the known world,
   had seen the sun of faith rise upon her, she had vowed herself
   to it with an ardent and tender devotion which became her very
   life. The course of ages has not interrupted this; the most
   bloody and implacable of persecutions has not shaken it; the
   defection of all northern Europe has not led her astray; and
   she maintains still, amid the splendours and miseries of
   modern civilisation and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, an
   inextinguishable centre of faith, where survives, along with
   the completest orthodoxy, that admirable purity of manners
   which no conqueror and no adversary has ever been able to
   dispute, to equal, or to diminish. … The Irish communities,
   joined by the monks from Gaul and Rome, whom the example of
   Patrick had drawn upon his steps, entered into rivalry with
   the great monastic schools of Gaul. They explained Ovid there;
   they copied Virgil; they devoted themselves especially to
   Greek literature; they drew back from no inquiry, from no
   discussion. … A characteristic still more distinctive of the
   Irish monks, as of all their nation, was the imperious
   necessity of spreading themselves without, of seeking or
   carrying knowledge and faith afar, and of penetrating into the
   most distant regions to watch or combat paganism. This monastic
   nation, therefore, became the missionary nation 'par
   excellence'."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 10-14 (volume 1),
      and chapter 18 (volume 2)._

      _D. DeVinné,
      The Irish Primitive Church._

      See, also, CHRISTIANITY; 5TH-9TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 9th-10th Centuries.
   The Danish conquests and settlements.

   "The people popularly known in our history as Danes comprised
   swarms from various countries in the north of Europe, from
   Norway, Sweden, Zealand, Jutland, and, in general, from all
   the shores and islands of the Baltic. … In the Irish annals
   they are variously called Galls, or foreigners; Geinti, or
   Gentiles; and Lochlanni, or inhabitants of Lochlann, or
   Lake-land, that is, Norway; and they are distinguished as the
   Finn Galls, or White Foreigners, who are supposed to have been
   the inhabitants of Norway; and the Dubh Galls, or Black
   Foreigners, who were probably the people of Jutland, and of
   the southern shores of the Baltic Sea. A large tract of
   country north of Dublin still retains the name of the former.
   … The Danes never obtained the dominion of Ireland as they
   did that of England."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 13-14._

   "Ireland was as yet [in the 9th century] a more tempting prey
   for the pirates than even Gaul. It was at the monasteries that
   these earlier raids were mainly aimed; and nowhere were the
   monastic houses so many and so rich. It was in these retreats
   indeed, sheltered as men deemed by their holiness from the
   greed of the spoiler, that the whole wealth of the country was
   stored; and the gold work and jewelry of their shrines, their
   precious chalices, the silver-bound horn which king or noble
   dedicated at their altars, the curiously-wrought covering of
   their mass-books, the hoard of their treasure-chests, fired
   the imagination of the northern marauders as the treasures of
   the Incas fired that of the soldiers of Spain. News spread
   fast up dale and fiord how wealth such as men never dreamed of
   was heaped up in houses guarded only by priests and shavelings
   who dared not draw sword. The Wikings had long been drawing
   closer to this tempting prey. From the coast of Norway a sail
   of twenty-four hours with a fair wind brings the sailor in
   sight of the Shetlands; Shetlands and Orkneys furnished a base
   for the advance of the pirates along the western shores of
   Britain, where they found a land like their own in the dales
   and lochs of Ross and Argyll, and where the names of Caithness
   and Sutherland tell of their conquest and settlement on the
   mainland; while the physical appearance of the people still
   records their colonization of the Hebrides. Names such as that
   of the Orm's Head mark their entrance at last into the Irish
   Channel."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 2._

{1757}

   "The 9th century was the period of Danish plunder, and of
   settlement along the coasts and in convenient places for
   purposes of plunder. Towards the latter end of this century
   the Irish in Ireland, like the English in England, succeeded
   in driving out the enemy, and there was peace for forty years.
   Then came the Danes again, but bent more definitely than
   before on permanent settlement; and their most notable work
   was the establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin, with
   its centre at one of their old haunts, Ath Cliath on the
   Liffey, where the city of Dublin was built by them. The
   establishment of this kingdom dates from the year 919, and its
   extent may be traced to-day as conterminous with the diocese
   of Dublin, extending from Holmpatrick and Skerries on the
   north, to Arklow and Wicklow on the south, and inland no
   farther than seven or eight miles to Leixlip. Until quite
   recently this was also the district over which extended the
   jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin as Admiral of the
   Port of Dublin. On College Green used to be held the assembly
   of the freemen of the kingdom of Dublin, while the chiefs took
   their seats on the steep hill that once stood where St.
   Andrew's Church now stands, opposite to 'the old house on
   College Green,' which is so dear to the national aspirations
   of the modern Irishmen. There the Danes held their
   parliaments, agreeing on laws, consenting to judgments and
   contracts, feasting and making merry, just as the old Irish
   held their parliaments at Tara, Carman, Armagh, and elsewhere.
   Nor was Dublin the only Danish city. Limerick, Cork,
   Waterford, Wexford, all became the centres of petty Danish
   kingdoms, active in commerce, skilful for those times, in
   domestic architecture, and with political and legislative
   ideas identical in their essence with those of the people
   among whom they settled. In the course of the 10th century the
   Danes nominally became, for the most part, converts to
   Christianity. But it appears that they derived their
   Christianity mainly from English sources; and when they began
   to organize their Church, they did so after the Roman manner,
   and in connection with the see of Canterbury. It was not,
   however, till after the wars of Brian Born that Danish
   Christianity became either very real or at all organized."

      _S. Bryant,
      Celtic Ireland,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Haliday,
      The Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 6_.

      See, also,
      NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,

IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
   The Battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

   By a revolution which occurred in the year 1000, Malachy II.
   of the dynasty which had reigned long at Tara, was deposed
   from the chief sovereignty, and Brian Boromh or Boru, of the
   royal family of Munster, who had fought his way up to
   masterful power, became the Ardrigh or over-king of Ireland.
   In 1014 Brian was called upon to face a great combination
   which the Danes of Dublin had effected with their fellow
   Northmen, including those of Denmark, Norway, Scotland and all
   the isles. It was the Danish intention now to accomplish
   completely the conquest of Ireland and bring their long
   struggle with its Celtic inhabitants to an effectual close,
   King Brian and his countrymen made equal exertions on their
   side to meet the attack, and the great battle of Clontarf,
   fought on Good Friday of the year 1014, gave them a decisive
   victory. "Clontarf, the lawn or meadow of bulls, stretches
   along the crescent-shaped north strand of Dublin harbor, from
   the ancient salmon weir at Ballyboght bridge, towards the
   promontory of Howth. Both horns of the crescent were held by
   the enemy, and communicated with his ships: the inland point
   terminating in the roofs of Dublin, and the seaward marked by
   the lion-like head of Howth. The meadow land between sloped
   gently upward and inward from the beach, and for the myriad
   duels which formed the ancient battle, no field could present
   less positive vantage ground to combatants on either side. The
   invading force had possession of both wings, so that Brian's
   army, which had first encamped at Kilmainham, must have
   crossed the Liffey higher up, and marched round by the present
   Drumcondra in order to reach the appointed field. The day
   seems to have been decided on by formal challenge. … The
   forces on both sides could not have fallen short of 20,000
   men. … The utmost fury was displayed on all sides. …
   Hardly a nobly born man escaped, or sought to escape. The ten
   hundred in armor, and 3,000 others of the enemy, with about an
   equal number of the men of Ireland, lay dead upon the field.
   One division of the enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to
   their ships, when Brodar the Viking, perceiving the tent of
   Brian, standing apart, without a guard, and the aged king on
   his knees before the Crucifix, rushed in, cut him down with a
   single blow, and then continued his flight. … The deceased
   hero took his place at once in history, national and foreign.
   … The fame of the event went out through all nations. The
   chronicles of Wales, of Scotland, and of Man; the annals of
   Ademar and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the Isles, all
   record the event. … 'Brian's battle,' as it is called in the
   Sagas, was, in short, such a defeat as prevented any general
   northern combination for the subsequent invasion of Ireland.
   Not that the country was entirely free from their attacks till
   the end of the 11th century; but, from the day of Clontarf
   forward, the long cherished Northern idea of a conquest of
   Ireland seems to have been gloomily abandoned by that
   indomitable people."

      _T. D'Arcy McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 12th Century.
   The great tribes and kingdoms and the ruling families.

   "Ireland was now [immediately before Strongbow's conquest]
   divided into four confederations of tribes. The O'Neils held
   Ulidia, which is now called Ulster; the O'Connors Conacia, or
   Connaught; the O'Briens and the M'Carthys Mononia, or Munster;
   and the Macmurroughs Lagenia, or Leinster—all under the
   paramount but often-disputed rule of a branch of the Ulster
   O'Neils. The royal demesne of Meath, the appanage of the
   Ulster family, which included Westmeath, Longford, and a part
   of King's County, was sometimes counted a fifth kingdom. In
   the wild north, O'Neil, O'Donnel, O'Kane, O'Hara, O'Sheel,
   O'Carrol, were mighty names.
{1758}
   On the northern-most peninsula, where the Atlantic runs into
   Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, O'Dogherty reigned supreme. In
   Connaught, O'Rourke, O'Reilly, O'Kelly, O'Flaherty, O'Malley,
   O'Dowd, were lords. In Meath and Leinster, MacGeogeghan,
   O'Farrell, O'Connor, O'Moore, O'Brennan, Macmurrough, ruled.
   In Munster, by the western shore, MacCarthy More held sway.
   MacCarthy Reagh swayed the south, by the pleasant waters of
   Cork Bay. O'Sullivan Beare was lord of the fair promontory
   between Bantry Bay and Kenmare River. O'Mahony reigned by
   roaring Water Bay. O'Donoghue was chieftain by the haunted
   Killarney Lakes. MacMahon ruled north of the Shannon. O'Loglin
   looked on Galway Bay. All Ireland, with the exception of a few
   seaport towns where the Danes had settled, was in the hands of
   Irish chiefs of old descent and famous lineage. They
   quarrelled amongst themselves as readily and as fiercely as if
   they had been the heads of so many Greek states. The Danes had
   been their Persians; their Romans were now to come."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
   The Anglo-Norman conquest.

   "The conquest of Ireland is among the most important episodes
   in the reign of Henry II. … There were reasons, besides the
   mere lust of conquest, why an English king should desire to
   reduce Ireland. It had given harbours and recruits to the
   Northmen on their expeditions; Irish soldiers had fought at
   Brunanbeorh [or Brunnanburgh] against Athelstane; English
   exiles, like the sons of Harold, repeatedly fled to the
   island, and awaited the opportunity of reprisals upon their
   own government. Irish pirates infested the English coasts, and
   carried off prisoners, whom they sold as slaves. Accordingly,
   William the Conqueror had meditated subjugating Ireland, if he
   lived two years longer; William Rufus once declared, as he
   stood on the coast of Wales, that he would bridge St. George's
   Channel with a fleet of ships. But it was reserved for John of
   Salisbury to obtain from his intimate friend, the English
   pope, Adrian IV., a grant of Ireland to the English crown [by
   the Bull 'Laudabilitur'] as a hereditary fief (A. D. 1154).
   … Nevertheless, the difficulty of invading Ireland seemed
   greater than any profit likely to result from it. The king's
   council opposed the enterprise; and for some years the project
   was suffered to sleep. But the wretched disorders of Irish
   politics invited the invader." Diarmaid MacMurchad, king of
   Leinster, having been driven from his dominions, "repaired to
   the court of Henry II. in Aquitaine. The offer to hold
   Leinster, if Henry would reinstate him, as an English fief,
   procured Diarmaid free quarters in Bristol, to which he
   speedily returned, and letters patent authorizing any English
   subject to assist him. Diarmaid published these, and promised
   large rewards in land to those who would help him to win back
   his kingdom. The most powerful ally whom Diarmaid's offers
   attracted was Richard de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, earl of
   Pembroke, and distant cousin to the king. … Three other
   adventurers were enlisted. Two of them, Robert Fitz-Stephen
   and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, were sons, by different fathers, of
   Nest, a Welsh princess; the third was Maurice de Prendergast."
   In May, 1169, Fitz-Stephen, with a small following, crossed
   the channel and captured Wexford. Some other successes soon
   enabled Diarmaid to make peace with his enemies and recover
   his kingdom, even before Strongbow's expedition had left
   Wales. "Diarmaid was reinstated, and English subjects had no
   authority to carry on war on their own account in Ireland.
   Strongbow accordingly went to Normandy, and asked permission
   to push the advantages gained. Obtaining only an ambiguous
   answer from the king, he determined to consider it in his
   favour, and went back into Wales to prepare an expedition. In
   May, A. D. 1170, he sent over Raymond le Gros, Fitz-Stephen's
   half nephew, as his precursor." Raymond defeated the Irish
   with great slaughter, in a battle near Waterford, and savagely
   murdered seventy prisoners. "In August, A. D. 1170, as
   Strongbow was preparing to embark, he received an explicit
   order from the king not to proceed. Quietly disregarding it,
   he crossed with a little army of 1,200 men, out of whom 200
   were knights. The storm of Waterford was his first exploit;
   and it illustrates the Irish architecture of the times, that
   the city walls were trenched by cutting away the wooden props
   of a house that was built into them. The frightful carnage of
   the storm was succeeded by the earl's marriage with Eva
   [daughter of King Diarmaid], who brought a kingdom as her
   dower. Then the united forces marched upon Dublin." The Danish
   city was treacherously stormed in the midst of a negotiation,
   and "the inhabitants experienced the worst miseries of the
   conquered. Hasculf [the Danish or Norse governor], and Asgall,
   king of the Northmen, escaped on board some small vessels to
   their countrymen in the Orkneys." The next year Hasculf
   reappeared with 60 ships from the Orkneys and Norway and laid
   siege to Dublin. He was defeated, taken prisoner and killed;
   but another fleet soon arrived and Dublin was again under
   siege. Reduced to a desperate strait, the small garrison
   sallied and routed the besiegers; but meantime Strongbow had
   lost ground elsewhere and Dublin and Waterford were the only
   possessions he retained. The anger of King Henry at his
   disobedience caused many of his followers to desert him, and
   he soon found it necessary to make peace with his offended
   sovereign. Crossing over to England, he succeeded in winning
   the royal pardon, and Henry returned to Ireland with him, to
   assist in the completing of the conquest. They were
   accompanied by a fleet of 400 ships and some 4,000 men. The
   appearance of the king was followed by a general submission of
   the Irish princes, and he made a royal progress to Cashel,
   where, in 1172, a synod was held to effect the Church reforms
   which were, ostensibly, the chief object of the conquest. "The
   court held at Lismore to establish order among the English
   settlers is better evidence than any synod of the real objects
   of the conquest. The country was partially distributed among
   Norman nobles; but as the English conquest of Ireland, more
   rapid than the Norman of England, had been effected by fewer
   men, and was more insecure, the changes in the property and
   laws of the nation were proportionately smaller. Meath, as the
   appanage of royalty, of course accrued to the English crown,
   and Henry assigned the whole of it to Hugh de Lacy, whom he
   made justiciary of the realm and governor of Dublin. The
   object of this enormous grant, no doubt, was to balance
   Strongbow's power.
{1759}
   The families of Desmond, Ormond, and Vernon received other
   estates. But the number of those invested was small. … The
   slightness of the change, no doubt, mainly contributed to the
   readiness with which the supremacy of the English crown was
   accepted. In April, A. D. 1172, Henry was able to return to
   England, leaving only Ulster behind him nominally unsubdued. A
   series of petty wars between Irish chiefs and Norman nobles
   soon broke out. The precarious nature of the English dominion
   became manifest; and Henry was forced to publish the papal
   grant of Ireland, which he had hitherto suppressed. At last,
   in A. D. 1175, Roderic O'Connor [king of Connaught, and
   previously recognized over-king of Ireland] made a treaty with
   the English crown, and agreed to render homage and submission,
   and a tribute of every tenth hide, in return for royal rights
   in his own kingdom of Connaught. At the same time, the limits
   of the English pale, as it was afterwards called, were
   defined. This district, which was immediately subject to the
   king of England and his barons, comprised Dublin with its
   appurtenances, Meath, Leinster, and the country from Waterford
   to Dungarvon. … From the English point of view, the kings of
   England were henceforth lords-paramount of Ireland, with the
   fee of the soil vested in them, and all Irish princes in
   future were no more than tenants-in-chief. From the Irish
   point of view, the English kings were nothing more than
   military suzerains in the districts outside the pale."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. J. R. Green,
      Henry the Second,
      chapter 8._

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapters 6-7._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 2, chapters 1-2._

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 26-29._

      _F. P. Barnard, editor,
      Strongbow's Conquest of Ireland:
      From Contemporary Writers._

IRELAND: 13th-14th Centuries.
   Under the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

   "The feudal system as established in Ireland differed in
   important respects from that existing in England. It is usual
   for Irish writers to attribute much of the sufferings of
   Ireland to the misgovernment of England and the introduction
   of feudalism, whereas most of these evils may be referred
   rather to English non-government and to the peculiar anomalies
   of the Irish feudal system. The feudal system as introduced
   into Ireland, like most other institutions imported from
   England, was altered in such a manner as to retain all its
   evils, and lose all its advantages. The Crown in Ireland
   possessed no power of controlling its vassals. … In Ireland
   there were no manor or valuable estates that the Crown could
   appropriate—the entire country had to be conquered; and as
   the Crown did not assist in the conquest, it received no part
   of the spoils. Thus we find the Crown had absolutely no
   demesnes of its own, and, being deprived of any military force
   of its own, it had to rely upon such of the great feudal
   vassals as might remain loyal for the purpose of crushing
   those who might be in rebellion. The inevitable result of this
   policy was to kindle a civil war and excite personal feuds in
   the attempt to maintain order. … We have thus a feudal
   system, in which the Crown is powerless to fulfil its duties,
   yet active in preventing the greater nobles from exercising
   that influence which might have secured a reasonable degree of
   order. The whole energy of the nobles was turned away from
   government to war; and lest they should become local
   potentates, they were allowed to degenerate into local
   tyrants. But what, meanwhile, had become of the Irish nation?
   As the feudal system ignored their existence, we have
   permitted them to fall out of our view; but they still
   existed, and still were politically independent. The invaders
   had occupied the flat country, suitable for the operation of
   their forces, and the original inhabitants had retired into
   either the mountainous districts, impassable to cavalry, or
   into districts protected by the bogs, and difficult of access;
   nay, even in some parts of the island, where the Normans were
   not in force, they had re-occupied large portions of the open
   country. They did not retire as disorganised fugitives, but
   the tribes retreated, keeping their social organisation
   unbroken; and, although removed from their original
   habitations, still preserved their social identity. The
   remarkable point in the conquest was, that the Celtic
   population was not driven back upon anyone portion of the
   kingdom, but remained as it was, interpolated among the new
   arrivals. … The Celtic population possessed no definite
   legal position, filled no place in the feudal hierarchy, and
   was in the eyes of the English Government hostile and alien;
   the only exception to this was the case of the O'Briens, who,
   though not actually feudal vassals, had their estates secured
   by a charter, and five Irish families, through some unknown
   reason, were considered as the king's men and entitled to his
   protection; these were known as the five bloods, who enjoyed
   the law of England to the extent of the privilege to sue in
   the king's courts, viz., O'Neill, O'Molaghlin, O'Connor,
   O'Brien, and M'Murrough. … The Irish in Ireland were treated
   by the king's courts in Ireland as an alien and hostile
   nation; an Irishman out of the king's peace could not bring an
   action against an Englishman. … But, though legally ignored,
   the Irish tribes could not be politically disregarded. The
   English Government used their assistance to repress the
   rebellions of insurgent vassals. … They were called on to
   furnish assistance to the English armies, and on many
   occasions we find their chiefs summoned by writ of Parliament,
   as if feudal vassals; but the mode in which they were treated
   depended upon the immediate objects and want of the English
   Government, and the general course of conduct pursued towards
   them was such as has been previously stated. … We thus find
   the English and Irish races hopelessly at variance, and it
   would seem that one or other must have been crushed out in the
   contest; but such was not the result; they both survived, and,
   contrary to reasonable expectations, the Irish exhibited the
   greater vitality. The expulsion of the English colony was an
   effort beyond the power of the disunited Irish tribes; for in
   the darkest hours of the English settlement the power of
   England was ready, by some sudden effort, to reassert the
   English supremacy. But why did the Anglo-Normans wholly fail
   to subdue the Irish? …

   1. The large extent comprised in the grants made to the first
   colonists led to a dispersion of the Norman nobles over the
   more fertile portions of the country. The English colony never
   formed one compact body capable of combined action. …

{1760}

   2. The military equipment of the Normans, and their mode of
   carrying on war, rendered their forces wholly inefficient,
   when, leaving the flat country, they attempted to penetrate
   the fastnesses of the native tribes. …

   3. From the absence of any central government, civil wars
   continually arose between the several Norman lords; thus the
   military power of the colonists was frittered away in
   dissensions. …

   4. The English Government continually called upon the Irish
   barons for aids and military service, to be employed in wars
   elsewhere than in Ireland. …

   5. Many of the estates of the Norman nobles descended to
   heiresses who married Englishmen already possessing estates in
   England: hence arose absenteeism.

   6. Even the lords who resided constantly upon their Irish
   estates gradually lost their Norman habits, and tended to
   assimilate themselves to the manners, and to adopt the
   language, of the Irish."

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. W. Joyce,
      Short History of Ireland,
      part 3._

      See, also,
      PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES;
      and GERALDINES.

IRELAND:
   The Celticizing of the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

   "Prior to experience, it would have been equally reasonable to
   expect that the modern Englishman would adopt the habits of
   the Hindoo or the Mohican, as that the fiery knights of
   Normandy would have stooped to imitate a race whom they
   despised as slaves; that they would have flung away their very
   knightly names to assume a barbarous equivalent [the De Burghs
   became Bourkes or Burkes, the M'Sweenies had been Veres in
   England, and the Munster Geraldines merged their family name
   in that of Desmond.—Foot-note]; and would so utterly have
   cast aside the commanding features of their Northern
   extraction, that their children's children could be
   distinguished neither in soul nor body, neither in look, in
   dress, in language, nor in disposition, from the Celts whom
   they had subdued. Such, however, was the extraordinary fact.
   The Irish who had been conquered in the field revenged their
   defeat on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and in
   yielding, yielded only to fling over their new masters the
   subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. In vain the government
   attempted to stem the evil. Statute was passed after statute
   forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use the Irish
   language, or intermarry with Irish families, or copy Irish
   habits. Penalties were multiplied on penalties; fines,
   forfeitures, and at last death itself, were threatened for
   such offences. But all in vain. The stealthy evil crept on
   irresistibly. Fresh colonists were sent over to restore the
   system, but only for themselves or their children to be swept
   into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the
   Conquest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the strange
   phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation,
   baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralysing every effort
   at a remedy."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.
   Edward Bruce's invasion.

   The crushing defeat of the English by the Scotch at
   Bannockburn (1314) rekindled a spirit of rebellion in Ireland,
   and the discontented chiefs made haste to solicit aid from
   Scotland, offering the sovereignty of their island to Edward
   Bruce, brother of king Robert, if he would come to their help
   and conquer it. "By consent of king Robert, who was pleased to
   make a diversion against England upon a vulnerable point, and
   not, perhaps, sorry to be rid of a restless spirit, which
   became impatient in the lack of employment, Edward invaded
   Ireland at the head of a force of 6,000 Scots. He fought many
   battles, and gained them all. He became master of the province
   of Ulster, and was solemnly crowned king of Ireland; but found
   himself amid his successes obliged to intreat the assistance
   of king Robert with fresh supplies; for the impetuous Edward,
   who never spared his own person, was equally reckless of
   exposing his followers; and his successes were misfortunes, in
   so far as they wasted the brave men with whose lives they were
   purchased. Robert Bruce led supplies to his brother's
   assistance, with an army which enabled him to overrun Ireland,
   but without gaining any permanent advantage. He threatened
   Dublin, and penetrated as far as Limerick in the west, but was
   compelled, by scarcity of provisions, to retire again into
   Ulster, in the spring of 1317. He shortly after returned to
   Scotland, leaving a part of his troops with Edward, though
   probably convinced that his brother was engaged in a desperate
   and fruitless enterprise. … After his brother's departure,
   Edward's career of ambition was closed at the battle of
   Dundalk, where, October 5th, 1318, fortune at length failed a
   warrior who had tried her patience by so many hazards. On that
   fatal day he encountered, against the advice of his officers,
   an Anglo-Irish army ten times more numerous than his own. A
   strong champion among the English, named John Maupas, singling
   out the person of Edward, slew him, and received death at his
   hands. … A general officer of the Scots, called John
   Thomson, led back the remnant of the Scottish force to their
   own country. And thus ended the Scottish invasion of Ireland,
   with the loss of many brave soldiers."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 3, chapter 36._

IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.
   Oppressions of the reign of Edward III.

   "Of all the legislative measures of this period the most
   notable was the Statute of Kilkenny, passed at a Parliament
   held in that town, in the last year of the decade, in the Lent
   session of 1367. This 'famous, or infamous,' enactment
   gathered up into one, and recapitulated with additional
   aggravations and insults, all the former oppressive,
   exasperating, and iniquitous ordinances by which English
   legislation for Ireland had hitherto been disgraced. … Among
   the earliest measures passed in the reign of Edward III. was a
   statute directed against absenteeism, obliging all Englishmen
   who were Irish proprietors either to reside on their estates
   or to provide soldiers to defend them. But this enactment was
   unproductive of good results. The O'Neills drove the colonists
   out of the 'liberty of Ulster,' and the English De Burghs, so
   far from helping to uphold English ascendency, appropriated to
   themselves the entire lordship of Connaught, made common cause
   with the native tribes, and adopting their dress, language,
   and customs, became 'Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores,' threw off
   their allegiance to King Edward, and bade defiance to the
   King's authority. Thus it came to pass that before many years
   of this reign had elapsed more than a third part of the
   territories of the Pale was again in the hands of its original
   possessors. … Edward III. inherited the barbarous and
   iniquitous traditions of English rule in Ireland, but he
   improved upon them.
{1761}
   He ordered all his officers in that country who had Irish
   estates to be removed and give place to Englishmen with no
   Irish ties. He next declared void every grant of land in
   Ireland since the time of Edward II., and made new grants of
   the lands thus recovered to the Crown. The tendency of this
   monstrous measure was to create two more antagonistic parties
   in Ireland, destined by their bitter dissensions to bring
   about the result that ere long 'all the King's land in Ireland
   was on the point of passing away from the Crown of England,'—
   viz., the 'English by blood,' as the established settlers were
   called, and the 'English by birth,' or new grantees. Some of
   the chief of the former, in despair of a career, or even of a
   quiet life, at home, were about to bid good-bye to Ireland and
   seek their fortunes elsewhere, when they were arrested by a
   proclamation making it penal for any English subject capable
   of bearing arms to leave the country. … The 'English by
   blood' became more and more intimately connected and
   identified with the native Irish, and the 'English by birth'
   became more and more powerless to maintain the English
   ascendency; till at last, in 1361, the King determined on
   sending over a viceroy of the blood royal, and appointed to
   the post his son Lionel, created shortly afterwards Duke of
   Clarence, whom he had married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter
   and representative of the last Earl of Ulster. But though
   Prince Lionel, on his arrival, took the precaution of
   forbidding any man born in Ireland to approach his camp, his
   position soon became so critical that the King issued writs
   commanding all the absentee Irish lords to hasten to Ireland
   to the assistance of the Prince, 'for that his very dear son
   and his companions in Ireland were in imminent peril.' The
   next step was the passing of the Statute of Kilkenny. It
   re-enacted the prohibition of marriage and foster-nursing,
   rendered obligatory the adoption of the English language and
   customs, forbade the national games of 'hurlings and
   quoitings,' and the use of the ancient Gaelic code called the
   Senchus Mor; a code by which the native brehons, or judges, of
   the Irish septs had decided causes among them since the time
   of the conversion of the race to Christianity in the fifth
   century."

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III., 4th decade,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1494.
   Poynings' Laws.

   During the Wars of the Roses, "if Ireland had any preference
   for either of the great contending parties in England, it was
   … for the House of York; and from this cause chiefly sprang
   the change of Henry VII.'s mode of governing the dependency
   which on ascending the throne he had found all but severed
   from his dominions. At first he had thought it best to employ
   the native nobility for this purpose, and had chosen for
   Deputy the Earl of Kildare—setting him, as the story ran, to
   rule all Ireland, because all Ireland could not rule him.
   When, however, he had time to reflect on the dangers springing
   from the Irish support of Simnel and Warbeck, from which he
   and his dynasty had escaped so narrowly, he perceived the
   necessity of bringing the country under a more regular
   government. Accordingly he sent over in 1494 (at the time when
   Warbeck was preparing for his descent on England) Sir Edward
   Poynings as Lord Deputy, a statesman and commander well
   experienced in the most important affairs of the time."

      _C. E. Moberly,
      The Early Tudors,
      chapter 6._

   After some military operations, which he found to be beset
   with treacheries and difficulties, the new Lord Deputy held a
   Parliament at Drogheda—"perhaps the most memorable that was
   ever held in Ireland, as certainly no other Parliament in that
   country made laws which endured so long as two which were then
   enacted, and were known for centuries afterwards as the
   'Poynings Acts.' By the first of these it was ordained that no
   Parliament should be held in Ireland in future until the
   king's Council in England had approved not only of its being
   summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieutenant and
   Council of Ireland proposed to pass in it. By the second the
   laws enacted before that time in England were extended to
   Ireland also. Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely
   dependent upon England. The Irish Parliament had no power to
   originate anything, but was only free to accept or (if they
   were very bold) to reject measures drawn up by the Irish
   Council and approved already by the king and his Council in
   England before they were submitted to discussion. Little as
   this looks like parliamentary government, such was the state
   of subjection in which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue
   of this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost the whole
   time, that is to say, that Ireland had a separate Parliament
   at all it remained in this manner restricted in its action by
   the legislation of Sir Edward Poynings. … It should be
   remembered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought to do in
   Ireland what there is every reason to suppose he practically
   did in England. Legislation was not at this time considered to
   be the chief business of a Parliament."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Henry the Seventh,
      chapter. 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland Under the Tudors,
      chapter 8._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 2, chapter 4, section 7._

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1515.
   The English Pale and the Clans and Chiefs beyond it.

   "The events on which we are about to enter require for their
   understanding a sketch of the position of the various chiefs,
   as they were at this time scattered over the island. The
   English pale, originally comprising 'the four shires,' as they
   were called, of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Uriel or Louth,
   had been shorn down to half its old dimensions. The line
   extended from Dundalk to Ardee; from Ardee by Castletown to
   Kells; thence through Athboy and Trim to the Castle of
   Maynooth; from Maynooth it crossed to Claine upon the Liffey,
   and then followed up the line of the river to Ballimore
   Eustace, from which place it skirted back at the rear of the
   Wicklow and Dublin mountains to the forts at Dalkey, seven
   miles south of Dublin. This narrow strip alone, some fifty
   miles long and twenty broad, was in any sense English. Beyond
   the borders the common law of England was of no authority; the
   king's writ was but a strip of parchment; and the country was
   parcelled among a multitude of independent chiefs, who
   acknowledged no sovereignty but that of strength, who levied
   tribute on the inhabitants of the pale as a reward for a
   nominal protection of their rights, and as a compensation for
   abstaining from the plunder of their farms. …
{1762}
   These chiefs, with their dependent clans, were distributed
   over the four provinces in the following order. The
   Geraldines, the most powerful of the remaining Normans, were
   divided into two branches. The Geraldines of the south, under
   the Earls of Desmond, held Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; the
   Geraldines of Leinster lay along the frontiers of the English
   pale; and the heads of the house, the Earls of Kildare, were
   the feudal superiors of the greater portion of the English
   counties. To the Butlers, Earls of Ormond and Ossory, belonged
   Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary. The De Burghs, or Bourkes, as
   they called themselves, were scattered over Galway, Roscommon,
   and the south of Sligo, occupying the broad plains which lie
   between the Shannon and the mountains of Connemara and Mayo.
   This was the relative position into which these clans had
   settled at the Conquest, and it had been maintained with
   little variation. The north, which had fallen to the Lacies
   and the De Courcies, had been wholly recovered by the Irish.
   The Lacies had become extinct. The De Courcies, once Earls of
   Ulster, had migrated to the south, and were reduced to the
   petty fief of Kinsale, which they held under the Desmonds. The
   Celtic chieftains had returned from the mountains to which
   they had been driven, bringing back with them, more intensely
   than ever, the Irish habits and traditions. … The O'Neils
   and O'Donnells had spread down over Ulster to the frontiers of
   the pale. The O'Connors and O'Carrolls had recrossed the
   Shannon and pushed forwards into Kildare; the O'Connor Don was
   established in a castle near Portarlington, said to be one of
   the strongest in Ireland; and the O'Carrolls had seized Leap,
   an ancient Danish fortress, surrounded by bog and forest, a
   few miles from Parsonstown. O'Brien of Inchiquin, Prince—as
   he styled himself—of Thomond, no longer contented with his
   principality of Clare, had thrown a bridge across the Shannon
   five miles above Limerick, and was thus enabled to enter
   Munster at his pleasure and spread his authority towards the
   south; while the M'Carties and O'Sullivans, in Cork and Kerry,
   were only not dangerous to the Earls of Desmond, because the
   Desmonds were more Irish than themselves, and were accepted as
   their natural chiefs. In Tipperary and Kilkenny only the
   Celtic reaction was held in check. The Earls of Ormond,
   although they were obliged themselves to live as Irish
   chieftains, and to govern by the Irish law, yet … remained
   true to their allegiance, and maintained the English authority
   as far as their power extended. … Wexford, Wicklow, and the
   mountains of Dublin, were occupied by the Highland tribes of
   O'Bryne and O'Toole, who, in their wild glens and dangerous
   gorges, defied attempts to conquer them, and who were able, at
   all times, issuing down out of the passes of the hills, to cut
   off communication with the pale. Thus the Butlers had no means
   of reaching Dublin except through the county of Kildare, the
   home of their hereditary rivals and foes. This is a general
   account of the situation of the various parties in Ireland at
   the beginning of the 16th century. I have spoken only of the
   leading families. … 'There be sixty counties, called
   regions, in Ireland,' says the report of 1515, 'inhabited with
   the king's Irish enemies.'"

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      PALE, THE ENGLISH.

IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
   The reconquest under Henry VIII. and
   the fall of the Geraldines.
   The political pacification and the religious alienation.

   "To Henry VIII. the policy which had been pursued by his
   father was utterly hateful. His purpose was to rule in Ireland
   as thoroughly and effectively as he ruled in England. … The
   Geraldines, who had been suffered under the preceding reign to
   govern Ireland in the name of the Crown, were quick to
   discover that the Crown would no longer stoop to be their
   tool. They resolved to frighten England again into a
   conviction of its helplessness; and the rising of Lord Thomas
   Fitzgerald followed the usual fashion of Irish revolts. A
   murder of the Archbishop of Dublin, a capture of the city, a
   repulse before its castle, a harrying of the Pale, ended in a
   sudden disappearance of the rebels among the bogs and forests
   of the border on the advance of the English forces. …
   Unluckily for the Geraldines, Henry had resolved to take
   Ireland seriously in hand, and he had Cromwell [Sir Thomas] to
   execute his will. Skeffington, the new Lord Deputy, brought
   with him a train of artillery, which worked a startling change
   in the political aspect of the island. The castles which had
   hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into ruins. … Not
   only was the power of the great Norman house which had towered
   over Ireland utterly broken, but only a single boy was left to
   preserve its name. With the fall of the Geraldines Ireland
   felt itself in a master's grasp. … In seven years, partly
   through the vigour of Skeffington's successor, Lord Leonard
   Grey, and still more through the resolute will of Henry and
   Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had been limited to
   the walls of Dublin, was acknowledged over the length and
   breadth of Ireland. … Chieftain after chieftain was won over
   to the acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him in the
   possession of his lands, and left his authority over his
   tribesmen untouched, on conditions of a pledge of loyalty, of
   abstinence from illegal wars and exactions on his
   fellow-subjects, and of rendering a fixed tribute and service
   in war-time to the Crown. … [This] firm and conciliatory
   policy must in the end have won, but for the fatal blunder
   which plunged Ireland into religions strife at the moment when
   her civil strife seemed about to come to an end. … In
   Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never existed among the
   people at all. They accepted the legislative measures passed
   in the English Parliament without any dream of theological
   consequences, or of any change in the doctrine or ceremonies
   of the Church. … The mission of Archbishop Browne 'for the
   plucking-down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the
   first step in the long effort of the English Government to
   force a new faith on a people who to a man clung passionately
   to their old religion. Browne's attempts at 'tuning the
   pulpits' were met by a sullen and significant opposition. …
   Protestantism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from his
   older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting all Ireland
   against the Crown. … The population within the Pale and
   without it became one, 'not as the Irish nation,' it has been
   acutely said, 'but as Catholics.' A new sense of national
   identity was found in the identity of religion."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 7, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland Under the Tudors,
      volume 1, chapters 9-15._

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 30._

{1763}

IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
   The wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh O'Neil, Earls of Tyrone.
   The League of the Geraldines and the Ulster Confederacy.

   "The Reformation begun under Henry VIII. was carried out with
   pitiless determination under Edward VI., and was met by the
   Catholics with unflinching opposition. Under Mary there was a
   period of respite, but the strife was renewed with greater
   fierceness in the succeeding reign. As authentic Irish history
   begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth modern Irish
   history may be said to begin. … At her accession, Elizabeth
   was too much occupied with foreign complications to pay much
   heed to Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict between the
   feudal laws and the old Irish law of Tanistry. Con O'Neil,
   Earl of Tyrone, had taken his title from Henry VIII., subject
   to the English law of succession; but when Con died, the clan
   O'Neil, disregarding the English principle of hereditary
   succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an illegitimate son of Con,
   and the hero of his Sept, to be The O'Neil. Shane O'Neil at
   once put himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, the
   supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves in their own
   way and pay no heed to England. Under the pretence of
   governing the country, Elizabeth overran it with a soldiery
   who, as even Mr. Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally
   on plunder, and were little better than bandits. The time was
   an appropriate one for a champion of Irish rights. Shane
   O'Neil boldly stood out as sovereign of Ulster, and pitted
   himself against Elizabeth. … Shane fought bravely against
   his fate, but he was defeated [A. D. 1567], put to flight, and
   murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, in whose
   strongholds he madly sought refuge. His head was struck off,
   and sent to adorn the walls of Dublin Castle. His lands were
   declared forfeit, and his vassals, vassals of the Crown.
   English soldiers of fortune were given grants from Shane's
   escheated territory, but when they attempted to settle they
   were killed by the O'Neils. Others came in their place, under
   Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, and did their best to simplify
   the process of colonization by exterminating the O'Neils, men,
   women, and children, wherever they could be got at. After two
   years of struggle Essex was compelled to abandon his
   settlement. But other colonizers were not disheartened. Some
   West of England gentlemen, under Peter Carew, seized on Cork,
   Limerick and Kerry, and sought to hold them by extirpating the
   obnoxious natives. Against these English inroads the great
   Geraldine League was formed. In the reign of Mary, that boy of
   twelve whom Henry VIII. had not been able to include in the
   general doom of his house had been allowed to return to
   Ireland, and to resume his ancestral honours, Once more the
   Geraldines were a great and powerful family in Ireland."
   Defeated in their first rising, "the Geraldines and their
   companion chiefs got encouragement in Rome and pledges from
   Spain, and they rose again under the Earl of Desmond and Sir
   James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. At first they had some
   successes, They had many wrongs to avenge. … Sir Francis
   Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix and Offaly, had
   conceived and executed the idea of preventing any further
   possible rising of the chiefs in those districts by summoning
   them and their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of
   Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out of 400 guests,
   only one man, a Lalor, escaped from that feast of blood. …
   With such memories in their minds, the tribes rose in all
   directions to the Desmond call. … Elizabeth sent over more
   troops to Ireland under the new Lord Deputy, Sir William
   Pelham, who had with him as ally Ormonde, the head of the
   house of Butler, hereditary foes of the Geraldines, and easily
   induced to act against them. Pelham and Ormonde cut their way
   over Munster, reducing the province by unexampled ferocity.
   Ormonde boasted that he had put to death nearly 6,000
   disaffected persons. Just at this moment some of the chiefs of
   the Pale rose, and rose too late. They gained one victory over
   Lord Grey de Wilton in the pass of Glenmalure [August, 1580].
   … Grey immediately abandoned the Pale to the insurgents, and
   turned to Smerwick [A. D. 1580], where some 800 Spanish and
   Italian soldiers had just landed, too late to be of any
   service to the rebellion, and had occupied the dismantled
   fort. It was at once blockaded by sea and by land. In Grey's
   army Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser both held commands.
   Smerwick surrendered at discretion, and the prisoners were
   killed by Raleigh and his men in cold blood. Flushed by this
   success, Grey returned to the Pale and carried all before him.
   The Geraldines were disheartened, and were defeated wherever
   they made a stand. … Munster was so vigorously laid waste
   that Mr. Froude declares that 'the lowing of a cow or the
   sound of a ploughboy's whistle was not to be heard from
   Valentia to the Rock of Cashel.' Holinshed declares the
   traveller would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in
   towns or cities, and would not see any beast; and Spenser
   gives a melancholy picture of the misery of the inhabitants,
   'as that any stony heart would rue the same.' … The next
   step was to confiscate the estates of the rebellious
   chieftains. … The estates of Desmond and some 140 of his
   followers came to the Crown. The land was then distributed at
   the cheapest rate in large tracts to English nobles and
   gentlemen adventurers, who were pledged to colonize it with
   English labourers and tradesmen. But of these labourers and
   tradesmen not many came over, and those who did soon returned,
   tired of struggling for their foothold with the dispossessed
   Irish." During all this Geraldine or Desmond rebellion Ulster
   had remained quiet; but in 1594 it began to show signs of
   disturbance. "Hugh O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil
   whom Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been brought up
   at the English court, and confirmed in the lordship of Tyrone
   by the English Government. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth
   the young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of mind
   and body. When he came of age he was allowed to return to
   Ireland to his earldom. Once within his own country, he
   assumed his ancestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the
   customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long enough he
   took no part in any plots or movements against the Crown; but
   many things, the ties of friendship and of love, combined to
   drive him into rebellion.

{1764}

   … Tyrone in the end consented to give the powerful support
   of his name and his arms to a skilfully planned confederation
   of the tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into the
   insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most formidable Irish
   leader the English had yet encountered. … Victory followed
   victory [that of the Yellow Ford, 1598, being the most
   important]. In a little while all Ireland, with the exception
   of Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the hands of the
   rebels. Essex, and the largest army ever sent to Ireland,
   crossed the Channel to cope with him; but Essex made no
   serious move, and after an interview with Tyrone, in which he
   promised more than he could perform, he returned to England to
   his death. His place was taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all
   his love of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was a
   stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated [at Kinsale, 1601].
   From that hour the rebellion was over. … At last Tyrone was
   compelled to come to terms. He surrendered his estates,
   renounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, abjured
   alliance with all foreign powers, and promised to introduce
   English laws and customs into Tyrone. In return he received a
   free pardon and a re-grant of his title and lands by letters
   patent. Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also submitted,
   and was allowed to retain the title of Earl of Tyrconnel.
   Elizabeth was already dead, and the son of Mary Stuart [James
   I.] was King of England when these terms were made; but they
   were not destined to do much good."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D. McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 8, chapters 3-11 (volumes 1-2)._

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapters 32-35._

      _R. Bagwell,
      Ireland under the Tudors,
      volume 2._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 4, chapters 1-5 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
   The flight of the Earls and the Plantation of Ulster.

   "With the submission of the Earl of Tyrone terminated the
   struggle between the Tudor princes and the native Celtic
   tribes. No chieftain henceforward claimed to rule his district
   in independence of the Crown of England. The Celtic land
   tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, customs, and traditions
   of the defeated race were doomed to gradual yet certain
   extinction. … Before Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the
   object for which during so many years she had striven was thus
   at length accomplished; … but between the wars of the Tudors
   and the civil government of the Stuarts, still remain (the
   intermediate link, as it were, between the two) the fall of
   the able man who had created and so long conducted an almost
   national resistance, and the colonisation by English settlers
   of his demesnes and the adjoining parts of Ulster."

      _A. G. Richey,
      Short History of the Irish People,
      chapter 20._

   "Lord Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a
   suggestion at the service of the new king as profitable as the
   'princelie policie' which he taught his predecessor. He was of
   opinion that a great settlement of English husbandmen in
   Ireland, able to guard as well as to till the land, would help
   to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this was done
   Ireland was not effectually reduced, as Sir Edward Coke
   afterwards declared, 'for there was ever a back-door in the
   north.' The only question was where to plant them. O'Neill and
   Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they possessed a
   fertile territory, and as their 'loose order of inheritance'
   had been duly changed into 'an orderly succession,' they were
   quite ripe for confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously
   received into favour at the close of the late war, and some
   decent pretence for destroying them so soon was indispensable.
   It was found in a letter conveniently dropped in the precincts
   of Dublin Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a conspiracy
   there was not then, and has not been since discovered, any
   evidence worth recording. The letter was probably forged,
   according to the practise of the times; but where so noble a
   booty was to be distributed by the Crown, one can conceive how
   ill-timed and disloyal any doubt of their treason would have
   appeared at the Court of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They
   were proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to solicit
   aid from the Catholic Powers. Without delay James and his
   counsellors set to work. The King applied to the City of
   London to take up the lands of the wild Irish. They were well
   watered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with fuel, with
   good store of all the necessaries for man's sustenance; and
   moreover yielded timber, hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage
   for the purposes of commerce. The Companies of Skinners,
   Fishmongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like thereupon
   became Absentee Proprietors, and have guzzled Irish rents in
   city feasts and holiday excursions to Ireland from that day to
   this. Six counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely
   the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. The
   fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral glens that lie
   between the sheltering hills of Donegal, the undulating meadow
   lands stretching by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh,
   passed from the race which had possessed them since before the
   redemption of mankind. … The alluvial lands were given to
   English courtiers whom the Scotch king found it necessary to
   placate, and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not reward in
   England. The peasants driven out of the tribal lands to burrow
   in the hills or bogs were not treated according to any law
   known among civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of
   the chief, if he committed treason, affected them no more than
   the offences of a tenant for life affect a remainder man in
   our modern practice. Under the feudal system they were
   innocent feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land to
   the Crown, with all their personal rights undisturbed. The
   method of settlement is stated with commendable simplicity by
   the latest historian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth
   their having; what was not worth their having—the barren
   mountains and trackless morass, which after two centuries
   still in many cases yield no human food—were left to those
   who in the language of an Act of Parliament of the period were
   'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being descended from
   those who did inherit and possess the land.' Lest the
   frugality of the Celts should enable them to peacefully regain
   some of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that no
   plantator or servitor should alienate his portion, or any part
   thereof, to the mere Irish. The confiscated territory amounted
   to two millions of acres. 'Of these a million and a half' says
   Mr. Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the
   Irish. The half million acres of fertile land were settled
   with families of Scottish and English Protestants.' It was in
   this manner that the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 74-78
      (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland")._

{1765}

   "The City of London had taken in hand the settlement of Derry,
   which was now to be rebuilt under the name of Londonderry, and
   to give its name to the county in which it stood, and which
   had hitherto been known as the county of Coleraine."

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1642,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D'Arcy McGee,
      Popular History of Ireland,
      book 9, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _J. Harrison,
      The Scot in Ulster,
      chapter 3._

      _C. P. Meehan,
      Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone,
      and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel._

IRELAND: A. D. 1625.
   The Graces of Charles I.

   On the accession of Charles I., "one more effort was made by
   the Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the
   Government to allow them to remain undisturbed in the
   possession of their property. They offered to raise by
   voluntary assessment the large sum of £120,000 in three annual
   instalments of £40,000, on condition of obtaining certain
   Graces from the King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the
   Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate and equitable
   description. The most important were that undisturbed
   possession of sixty years should secure a landed proprietor
   from all older claims on the part of the Crown, that the
   inhabitants of Connaught should be secured from litigation by
   the enrolment of their patents, and that Popish recusants
   should be permitted, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, to
   sue for livery of their estates in the Court of Arches, and to
   practise in the courts of law. The terms were accepted. The
   promise of the King was given. The Graces were transmitted by
   way of instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, and the
   Government also engaged, as a further security to all
   proprietors, that their estates should be formally confirmed
   to them and to their heirs by the next Parliament which should
   be held in Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shameful
   passages in the history of English government of Ireland. In
   distinct violation of the King's solemn promise, after the
   subsidies that were made on the faith of that promise had been
   duly obtained, without provocation or pretext or excuse,
   Wentworth, who now presided with stern despotism over the
   government of Ireland, announced the withdrawal of the two
   principal articles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown
   claims by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation of
   the Connaught titles."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
   Wentworth's system of "Thorough."

   In the summer of 1633, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of
   Strafford, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. "It was
   during his tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to
   establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by the thereby
   enhanced power of the monarchy, he might be enabled to turn
   the scale in favour of a despotic government in England. And,
   never at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he contended
   for his scheme with an energy and a recklessness
   characteristic of the man. In the prosecution of his ends, he
   treated some of the most influential English noblemen resident
   in Ireland with the utmost indignity, simply with the object
   of intimidating them, at the outset, from any further
   opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, was even condemned
   to death on a charge of sedition and mutiny, merely for having
   made use of a disrespectful expression with reference to the
   lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. …
   Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church for independence
   was suppressed by Wentworth. According to his views, supreme
   authority in Church matters belonged absolutely and
   unconditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, in
   1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some concessions to
   Puritanism, and which had been introduced by Archbishop Usher
   in the reign of James I., and, at the same time, he united the
   Irish Established Church indissolubly with that of England.
   But above all things he considered it to be his duty to
   increase the army, which had hitherto been in a disorganised
   condition, and to put it in a state of complete efficiency; in
   order to do this, however, it was of the first importance to
   augment the revenue of the Crown, and in pursuance of this
   object he disdained no means. He extorted large sums of money
   from the Catholics by reminding them that, in case their
   contributions were too niggardly, there still existed laws
   against the Papists which could easily be put into operation
   again. The City of London Company, which some years before had
   effected the colonization of Londonderry, was suddenly called
   to account for not having fulfilled the stipulations contained
   in its charter, and condemned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the
   same spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining additions to
   the royal exchequer by a fresh settlement of Connaught; and,
   accordingly, he induced the Government, regardless of the
   engagements made some years previously at the granting of the
   'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had formerly advanced to
   the possession of this province. And now, as in the worst days
   of James I., there again prevailed the old system of
   investigation into the validity of the titles by which the
   landed gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such persons as
   were practised in disinterring these unregistered titles were
   looked upon with favour, and as a means of inciting to more
   vigorous efforts, a premium of 20 per cent. on the receipts
   realized during the first year by the confiscation of property
   thus imperfectly registered was guaranteed to the presidents
   of the commission. With a cynical frankness, Wentworth
   declared that no money was ever so judiciously expended as
   this, for now the people entered into the business with as
   much ardour and assiduity as if it were their own private
   concern. … The collective titles of the province of
   Connaught were at the unlimited disposal of the
   lord-lieutenant; and, although, notwithstanding this result,
   he, at the last moment, recoiled from the final act, and
   shrank from ejecting the present owners, and re-settling the
   province, it was not from any conscientious scruples that he
   refrained from taking this last decisive step: to the man
   whose motto was 'Thorough,' such scruples were unknown. …
   Practical considerations alone … induced Wentworth to pause
   in the path upon which he had entered.
{1766}
   Just at that time the Crown was engaged in a contest with
   Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the attempts of
   Charles to make his rule absolute had produced a state of
   public feeling which was in the highest degree critical. …
   In view of these considerations, therefore, Strafford
   postponed the colonization of the western province to a more
   favourable season. While we turn with just abhorrence from the
   contemplation of the reckless and despotic acts of this
   remarkable man, we must not, on the other hand, fail to
   acknowledge that his administration has features which present
   a brighter aspect. … In the exercise of a certain
   toleration, dictated, it is true, only by policy, he declined
   to meddle directly in the religious affairs of the Catholics.
   His greatest merit, however, consists in having advanced the
   material well-being of the country. He took a lively interest
   in agriculture and cattle-rearing, and by causing the rude and
   antiquated methods of husbandry which prevailed among the
   Irish agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern
   appliances, he contributed very materially to the advancement
   of this branch of industry. He also largely encouraged
   navigation, in consequence of which the number of Irish ships
   increased from year to year; and although it can not be denied
   that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in woollen cloth,
   from an apprehension that it might come into dangerous
   competition with English manufactures, he, nevertheless,
   sought to compensate the Irish in other ways, and the
   development of the Irish linen industry in the north was
   essentially his work. … The Irish revenue annually
   increased, and the customs returns alone were trebled during
   the administration of Lord Strafford. He was, accordingly, in
   a position to place at the disposal of his royal master a
   standing army of 9,000 men. … It was, therefore, no idle
   boast, but a statement in strict accordance with the truth,
   which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud on 16th
   December, 1634: 'I can now say that the king is here as truly
   absolute as any sovereign in the world can be.'"

      _R. Hassencamp,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 3._

   "Of all the suggesters of the infamous counsels of Charles,
   Laud and Wentworth were the most sincere:—Laud, from the
   intense faith with which he looked forward to the possible
   supremacy of the ecclesiastical power, and to which he was
   bent upon going, 'thorough', through every
   obstacle;—Wentworth, from that strong sense, with which birth
   and education had perverted his genius, of the superior
   excellence of despotic rule. … The letters which passed
   between them partook of a more intimate character, in respect
   of the avowal of ulterior designs, than either of them,
   probably, chose to avow elsewhere. … Laud had to regret his
   position in England, contrasted with that of the Irish deputy.
   'My lord,' he writes to Wentworth, speaking of the general
   affairs of church and state, 'to speak freely, you may easily
   promise more in either kind than I can perform: for, as for
   the church, it is so bound up in the forms of the common law,
   that it is not possible for me, or for any man, to do that
   good which he would, or is bound to do. … And for the state,
   indeed, my lord, I am for Thorough; but I see that both thick
   and thin stays somebody, where I conceive it should not; and
   it is impossible for me to go thorough alone.' … Every new
   act of despotism which struck terror into Ireland shot comfort
   to the heart of Laud. 'As for my marginal note,' exclaims the
   archbishop, 'I see you deciphered it well, and I see you make
   use of it too,—do so still; thorow and thorow. Oh that I were
   where I might go so too I but I am shackled between delays and
   uncertainties. You have a great deal of honour here for your
   proceedings. Go on a God's name!' And on Wentworth went,
   stopping at no gratuitous quarrel that had the slightest
   chance of pleasing the archbishop, even to the demolishing the
   family tomb of the earl of Cork,—since his grace, among his
   select ecclesiastical researches, had discovered that the spot
   occupied by my lord of Cork's family monuments, was precisely
   that spot upon which the communion-table, to answer the
   purposes of heaven, ought to stand!"

      _R. Browning,
      Thomas Wentworth (Eminent British Statesmen, volume 2,
      published under the name of John Forster)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 5, section 4._

      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England,
      chapter 76 (volume 8) and
      chapter 90 (volume 9)._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 1._

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 4, chapters 22-24._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 1._

IRELAND: A. D. 1641.
   The Catholic rising and alleged Massacres of Protestants.

   "The government which Strafford had established in Ireland
   fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to some of
   the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it authority
   over the whole country. The Irish army, which had been formed
   with so much difficulty, and maintained in spite of so much
   opposition, was disbanded without any attention being
   vouchsafed to the King's wish that it should be allowed to
   enter the Spanish service. … Under the influence of events
   in England, government based on prerogative, and on its
   connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in
   Ireland since Elizabeth's time, fell to the ground. This
   revolution however might entail important results. The Irish
   people was Catholic: while the Protestant settlers were split
   into two hostile factions, and thereby the highest authority
   in the land, which bore a really Protestant character, was
   systematically weakened and almost destroyed, the thought of
   ridding themselves of it altogether was sure to arise in the
   nation. The steed, never completely broken in, felt itself
   suddenly free from the tight rein which hitherto it had
   unwillingly obeyed. … It was the common object of all
   Catholics, alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to
   restore to the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and
   houses that had been taken from her, and above all to put an
   end to the colonies established since James I. in which
   Puritan tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old
   settlements were as eager for this as the natives. The idea
   originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish extraction,
   Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who had been involved in
   Tyrone's ruin, but were connected by marriage with several
   English families. The first man whom O'More won over was Lord
   Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old English descent in
   Connaught, of the house of De Burgh. … The best military
   leader in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of
   old English origin. … Among the natives the most notable
   personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, after having been long in
   England, and learning Protestantism there, on his return to
   Ireland went back to the old faith and the old customs: he was
   reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded
   popular influence.
{1767}
   The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English
   extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It involved
   making the Catholic religion altogether dominant in Ireland:
   even of the old nobility none but the Catholics were to be
   tolerated: all the lands that had been seized for the new
   settlements were to be given back to the previous possessors
   or their heirs. In each district a distinguished family was to
   be answerable for order, and to maintain an armed force for
   the purpose. They would not revolt from the King, but still
   would leave him no real share in the government. Two lords
   justices, both Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old
   English family, were to be at the head of the government. …
   The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could
   travel across the country without perceiving any stir or
   uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day of
   St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." Dublin
   was saved, by a disclosure of the plot to the government, on
   the evening of the 22d, by a Protestant Irishman who had
   gained knowledge of it. "Several other places also held out,
   as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to which
   the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the rage and
   cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the land, upon the
   unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands perished: their
   corpses filled the land and served as food for the kites. …
   Religious abhorrence entered into a dreadful league with the
   fury of national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Vespers
   and of the night of St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim,
   who at once was proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the
   title of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in
   his proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at
   all the man to check these cruelties. … With all this
   letting loose of ancient barbarism there was still some
   holding back. The Scottish settlements were spared, although
   they were the most hated of all, for fear of incurring the
   hostility of the Scottish as well as of the English nation.
   Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of the old
   English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the leadership of the
   sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger men of Meath
   assembled on the Boyne, and commenced hostilities against the
   Protestants: so completely had their religious sympathies
   prevailed over their patriotism."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 8, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "Some reference to the notorious story of the massacre of 1641
   is required, not because the account of it is true and is a
   part of history, nor because it is false and needs refutation,
   but because it is a State fiction, a falsehood with a purpose,
   and as such deserves mention as much as the levying of troops
   or the passing of laws. The record of the period is not the
   history of a massacre, but of the deliberate invention of a
   massacre. … No word of massacre had been heard of in the
   first State document that referred to the so-called rebellion.
   The Catholic lords of the Pale would never have united their
   names and fortunes with those of murderers. … The royalists
   again and again urged in their treaties with their opponents
   that an investigation of the cruelties committed on both sides
   should be made, and the proposal was always absolutely
   refused."

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 2)._

   "There were few places of strength in Ulster which had not
   fallen by the end of the first week into the hands of the
   insurgents. Sir Phelim O'Neill already found himself at the
   head of some 30,000 men, as yet of course undisciplined, and
   but few of them efficiently armed; and it is not to be
   expected that such an irregular multitude, with wild passions
   let loose, and so many wrongs and insults to be avenged, could
   have been engaged in scenes of war, even so long, without
   committing some deeds of blood which the laws of regular
   warfare would not sanction. … Life was taken in some few
   instances where the act deserved the name of murder; but the
   cases of this nature, on the Irish side, at the commencement
   of the rebellion, were isolated ones; and nothing can be more
   unjust and false than to describe the outbreak of this war as
   a 'massacre'."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 37._

   "This [Sir Wm. Petty's] estimate of 37,000 Protestants
   supposed to have been murdered makes no allowance for those
   who escaped to England and Scotland, and never returned to
   Ireland. It seems to me more likely that about 27,000
   Protestants were murdered by the sword, gun, rope, drowning,
   &c., in the first three or four years of the rebellion. The
   evidence of the depositions, after deducting all doubtful
   exaggerations, leaves little doubt that the number so
   destroyed could hardly have been less than 25,000 at all
   events. But the truth is that no accurate estimate is
   possible. After the Portnaw massacre the Protestants,
   especially the Scotch, took an awful vengeance on their
   enemies. Henceforward one side vied in cruelty with the
   other."

      _M. Hickson,
      Ireland in the 17th Century,
      introduction, page 163._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carte,
      Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
      book 3 (chapters 1-2)._

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _T. Leland,
      History of Ireland,
      book 5, chapters 3-4 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1643.
   The king makes Peace with the rebels.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1645.
   King Charles' treaty with the Catholics.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
   The Rebels become Royalists.

   "The truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 1643]
   appears to have been well observed by each party, and resulted
   in a treaty of peace which was signed in July, 1646, by which
   the Roman Catholics obtained every demand which they put
   forward. This peace was nevertheless at once broken, and
   Ormond (who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant in January,
   1643) was closely besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by
   Cardinal Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed the
   command of the Irish Catholics. Finding himself in so
   dangerous a position, Ormond, by express direction from the
   king, offered his submission to the English Parliament, to
   whom he surrendered Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and such other
   garrisons as remained in his hands. This transaction was
   completed on the 25th of July, 1647, when Colonel Jones took
   command of Dublin for the Parliament, and was made by them
   Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force however
   amounted to but 5,000 men. The war now continued with varying
   success, the commanders for the Parliament being, in addition
   to Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in Munster;
{1768}
   The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who in September, upon the
   invitation of the Catholics, returned to Ireland, the Papal
   Nuncio having been driven from the country by his own party,
   who were alienated from him by his folly and insolence. At the
   end of 1648 there were therefore two parties in Ireland; the
   Parliamentary, which had been the English, holding Dublin and
   a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly rebels, were
   now held as Royalists, and whose new leader Ormond, on the
   death of Charles I., proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the
   16th of February, 1649, at Carrick, as King of England,
   Scotland, France, and Ireland. The English Parliament now at
   last resolved to put an end to disorder in Ireland, and with
   this object, in March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme
   command." Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, however, the
   Irish Royalists had reduced every garrisoned place except
   Dublin and Londonderry, defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but
   being defeated (August 2) by Jones when they laid siege to the
   capital. Though fought at the gates of Dublin, this was called
   the battle of Rathmines, Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000
   killed and 2,500 prisoners.

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carte,
      Life of James Duke of Ormond,
      books 4-5 (volume 3)._

      _D. Murphy,
      Cromwell in Ireland,
      chapters 1-3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.
   Cromwell's campaign.
   The slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford.

   'When Cromwell arrived in Ireland at the head of 12,000 men,
   he found almost the whole country under the power of the
   Royalists (August 15th). A Parliamentary garrison in Dublin
   itself had only escaped a siege by surprising the enemy on the
   banks of the Liffey (August 2nd). The general first marched
   against Drogheda, then called Droghdagh or Tredah, and
   summoned the garrison to surrender; Sir Arthur Ashton, the
   governor, refused; he had 3,000 of the choicest troops of the
   confederates and enough provisions to enable him to hold out
   till winter should compel the enemy to raise the siege. But
   within twenty-four hours the English batteries had made a
   breach in the wall, Oliver, after twice seeing his soldiers
   beaten off, led them on in person and carried the breach. A
   terrible massacre followed. 'Being in the heat of action I
   forbade them,' Cromwell wrote in his despatch to the
   Parliament, 'to spare any that were in arms in the town; and I
   think that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men.' Of
   these, one-half probably fell in the streets; the other half
   Cromwell describes as having been slain at early dawn in St.
   Peter's Church. This he looks upon as a judgment for their
   previous proceedings there. 'It is remarkable,' he writes,
   'that these people at first set up the mass in some places of
   the town that had been monasteries; but afterwards grew so
   insolent that, the last Lord's day before the storm, the
   Protestants were thrust out of the great church called St.
   Peter's, and they had public mass there; and in this very
   place near 1,000 of them were put to the sword, fleeing
   thither for safety. I believe all the friars were knocked on
   the head promiscuously but two.' … Royalist accounts assert
   that many hundreds of women and children were slain in St.
   Peter's Church: It is, of course, possible that some of the
   townspeople, fleeing thither for safety, lost their lives in
   the general massacre of the garrison. There is, however, no
   trustworthy witness for any lives being taken except those of
   soldiers and friars. Cromwell did not sanction the killing of
   any but those with arms in their hands, though he seems to
   have approved of the fate of the friars. The fanatical zeal of
   his letter, and the fact that he takes the full credit, or
   discredit, for the slaughter of the garrison; makes it
   improbable that he concealed anything; and this substantiated
   by his subsequent declaration, in which he gives this
   challenge:—'Give us an instance of one man, since my coming
   into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed, or banished,
   concerning the massacre or the destruction of whom justice
   hath not been done, or endeavoured to be done.' With the
   enemy's troops Cromwell carried out the determined mode of
   warfare which he began at Drogheda. They were mostly scattered
   over the country, occupied in garrison duty. Before whatever
   town he came he demanded immediate surrender, or threatened to
   refuse quarter. Town after town opened its gates to this grim
   summons. Wexford, which refused to surrender, was stormed, and
   the whole garrison, 2,000 in number, put to the sword (October
   11th). … In other respects, while Cromwell's rigour and
   determination saved bloodshed in the end by the rapidity and
   completeness of his conquests, his conduct in Ireland
   contrasted favourably on many points with that of the
   Royalists there. His own soldiers, for ill-using the people
   contrary to regulations, were sometimes cashiered the army,
   sometimes hanged. When a treaty was made, he kept faithfully
   to its terms. Garrisons that yielded on summons were allowed
   either to march away with arms and baggage, or else to go
   abroad and enter the service of any government at peace with
   England. Before the war was over he had rid the country, on
   these terms, of some 45,000 soldiers. Taking advantage of the
   divisions of his enemies, he persuaded several garrisons of
   English soldiers to desert the cause of Charles Stuart for the
   Commonwealth. His conduct of the war was so successful that,
   during the nine months of his stay in Ireland, the forces of
   the Royalists were shattered, and the provinces of Leinster
   and Munster recovered for the Parliament. Cromwell returned to
   England in May, 1650, leaving his son-in-law Ireton to
   complete the conquest of the country. The last garrisons in
   Ulster and Munster surrendered during the course of the
   ensuing summer and autumn. Ireton crossed the Shannon and
   drove the Irish back into the bogs and mountain fastnesses of
   Connaught, their last refuge, where fighting still continued
   for two years after all the rest of the country had been
   reduced (1651-2)."

      _B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
      King and Commonwealth,
      chapter 12._

   "No admiration for Cromwell, for his genius, courage, and
   earnestness—no sympathy with the cause that he upheld in
   England—can blind us to the truth, that the lurid light of
   this great crime [the massacre at Drogheda] burns still after
   centuries across the history of England and of Ireland; that
   it is one of those damning charges which the Puritan theology
   has yet to answer at the bar of humanity."

      _F. Harrison,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 8._

{1769}

   "Oliver's proceedings here [at Drogheda] have been the theme
   of much loud criticism, and sibylline execration; into which
   it is not our plan to enter at present. … To those who think
   that a land overrun with Sanguinary Quacks can be healed by
   sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very
   horrible. Terrible Surgery this: but is it Surgery and
   Judgment, or atrocious Murder merely? That is a question which
   should be asked; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in
   God's Judgments; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of
   Surgery;—which, in fact, is this Editor's case too. … Here
   is a man whose word represents a thing! Not bluster this, and
   false jargon scattering itself to the winds: what this man
   speaks out of him comes to pass as a fact; speech with this
   man is accurately prophetic of deed. This is the first King's
   face poor Ireland ever saw; the first Friend's face, little as
   it recognises him,—poor Ireland! … To our Irish friends we
   ought to say likewise that this Garrison of Tredah consisted,
   in good part, of Englishmen. Perfectly certain this:—and
   therefore let 'the bloody hoof of the Saxon,' &c., forbear to
   continue itself on that matter."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 5._

   "Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came, he
   held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience; …
   liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal
   belief, not of external worship; … but the rejection of the
   offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished with
   the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by
   force, with indiscriminate slaughter."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 5, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Murphy,
      Cromwell in Ireland._

IRELAND: A. D. 1651.
   The Massachusetts colonists invited to Ireland by Cromwell.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

IRELAND: A. D. 1652.
   The Kilkenny Articles.

   "On 12th May, 1652, the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered
   on terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted successively
   by the other principal armies between that time and the
   September following, when the Ulster forces surrendered. By
   these Kilkenny articles, all except those who were guilty of
   the first blood were received into protection, on laying down
   their arms; those who should not be satisfied with the
   conclusions the Parliament might come to concerning the Irish
   nation, and should desire to transport themselves with their
   men to serve any foreign state in amity with the Parliament,
   should have liberty to treat with their agents for that
   purpose."

      _J. P. Prendergast,
      The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
      part 1, section 2._

IRELAND: A. D. 1653.
   The Cromwellian Settlement.

   "By the term Cromwellian Settlement is to be understood the
   history of the dealings of the Commonwealth of England with
   the lands and habitations of the people of Ireland after their
   conquest of the country in the year 1652. … The officers of
   the army were eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their
   arrears, though it does not appear that the common soldiers
   were, who had small debentures and no capital, and no chance
   of founding families and leaving estates to their posterity.
   But the adventurers [national creditors, who had loaned money
   to the government for the Irish War] must be first settled
   with, as they had a claim to about one million of acres, to
   satisfy the sums advanced for putting down the rebellion on
   the faith of the Act of 17 Charles I. (A. D. 1642), and
   subsequent Acts and Ordinances, commonly called 'The Acts of
   Subscription.' By these, lands for the adventurers must be
   first ascertained, before the rest of the country could be
   free for disposal by the Parliament to the army. … Towards
   the close of the year 1653, the island seemed sufficiently
   desolated to allow the English to occupy it. On the 26th of
   September in that year, the Parliament passed an Act for the
   new planting of Ireland with English. The government reserved
   for themselves all the towns, all the church lands and tithes;
   for they abolished all archbishops, bishops, deans, and other
   officers, belonging to that hierarchy, and in those days the
   Church of Christ sat in Chichester House on College-green.
   They reserved also for themselves the four counties of Dublin,
   Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus
   reserved, the government were to satisfy public debts, private
   favourites, eminent friends of the republican cause in
   Parliament, regicides, and the most active of the English
   rebels, not being of the army. They next made ample provision
   for the adventurers. The amount due to the adventurers was
   £360,000. This they divided into three lots, of which £110,000
   was to be satisfied in Munster, £205,000 in Leinster, and
   £45,000 in Ulster, and the moiety of ten counties was charged
   with their payment:—Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in
   Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King's and Queen's Counties, in
   Leinster; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. But, as all
   was required by the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a
   lottery was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, London, for
   the 20th July, 1653. … A lot was then to be drawn by the
   adventurers, and by some officer appointed by the Lord General
   Cromwell on behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which
   baronies in the ten counties should be for the adventurers,
   and which for the soldiers. The rest of Ireland, except
   Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and
   soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to
   satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced
   to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000.
   Connaught was by the Parliament reserved and appointed for the
   habitation of the Irish nation; and all English and
   Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove
   out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English,
   were to receive estates in the English parts, of equal value,
   in exchange. … The Earl of Ormond, Primate Bramhall, and all
   the Catholic nobility, and many of the gentry, were declared
   incapable of pardon of life or estate, and were banished. …
   Connaught was selected for the habitation of all the Irish
   nation by reason of its being surrounded by the sea and the
   Shannon, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made into one
   line by a few forts. To further secure the imprisonment of the
   nation, and cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles
   wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging
   along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th
   September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was
   given to the soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to
   remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish
   women married to English Protestants before the 2d December,
   1650, provided they became Protestants; except, also, boys
   under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service
   and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, those who had
   shown during the ten years' war in Ireland their constant good
   affection to the Parliament of England in preference to the
   king.
{1770}
   There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or
   coming within five miles of some, on pain of death. All were
   to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under
   pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military
   officers, if found after that date on the English side of the
   Shannon." In the actual enforcement of the law—found
   impracticable in all its rigor—there were many special
   dispensations granted, and extensions of time.

      _J. P. Prendergast,
      The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,
      preface, and parts 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland in the 18th Century,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 6._

IRELAND: A. D. 1655.
   Cromwell's deportation of Girls to Jamaica.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
   The restored Stuarts and their Act of Settlement.

   "On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was
   established in Dublin; these summoned a convention of deputies
   from the protestant proprietors; and the convention tendered
   to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland.
   … To secure the royal protection, they made the king an
   offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though
   falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general
   insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protestant parliament
   in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in
   the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was
   graciously accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish
   Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but Charles
   was unwilling to call a parliament, because it would
   necessarily consist of men whose principles, both civil and
   religious, he had been taught to distrust. The first measure
   recommended to him by his English advisers, with respect to
   Ireland, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For this no
   legislative enactment was requisite. His return had given to
   the ancient laws their pristine authority. … In a short time
   the episcopal hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment
   of its former rights, and the exercise of its former
   jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy accomplishment,
   succeeded a much more difficult attempt,—the settlement of
   landed property in Ireland. The military, whom it was
   dangerous to disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions
   had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the royal
   confirmation of the titles by which they held their estates;
   and the demand was opposed by a multitude of petitioners
   claiming restitution or compensation [protestant royalists,
   loyal Catholics, &c.]. … Humanity, gratitude, and justice,
   called on the king to listen to many of these claims. … From
   an estimate delivered to the king, it appeared that there
   still remained at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly
   rental of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; a fund
   sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 'reprize' or
   compensate all the Irish really deserving of the royal favour.
   Under this impression, Charles published his celebrated
   declaration for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that no
   person deriving his title from the adventurers under the
   parliament, or the soldiers under the commonwealth, should be
   disturbed in the possession of his lands, without receiving an
   equivalent from the fund for reprisals; that all innocents,
   whether protestants or Catholics, that is, persons who had
   never adhered either to the parliament or the confederates,
   should be restored to their rightful estates." After much
   contention between deputations from both sides sent to the
   king, an act was passed through the Irish parliament
   substantially according to the royal declaration. "But to
   execute this act was found to be a task of considerable
   difficulty. By improvident grants of lands to the church, the
   dukes of York, Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery,
   Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, the fund
   for reprisals had been almost exhausted." New controversies
   and agitations arose, which finally induced the soldiers,
   adventurers, and grantees of the crown to surrender one third
   of their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund for
   reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was placed in a
   situation [August, 1665], not indeed to do justice, but to
   silence the most importunate or most deserving among the
   petitioners. … But when compensation had thus been made to a
   few of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became of the
   officers who had followed the royal fortune abroad, or of the
   3,000 Catholics who had entered their claims of innocence? To
   all these, the promises which had been made by the act of
   settlement were broken; the unfortunate claimants were
   deprived of their rights, and debarred from all hope of future
   relief. A measure of such sweeping and appalling oppression is
   perhaps without a parallel in the history of civilized
   nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and the only
   apology offered in its behalf was the stern necessity of
   quieting the fears and jealousies of the Cromwellian settlers,
   and of establishing on a permanent basis the protestant
   ascendancy in Ireland. … The following is the general
   result. The protestants were previously [i. e., before the
   Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about one moiety of
   all the profitable lands in the island; of the second moiety,
   which had been forfeited under the commonwealth, something
   less than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to the
   protestants; and of the remainder a portion almost equal in
   quantity, but not in quality, to one-third, was appropriated
   to the Catholics."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. Carte,
      Life of James Duke of Ormond,
      book 6 (volume 4)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
   The reign of James II.
   Domination of Tyrconnel and the Catholics.

   "At the accession of James II., in 1685, he found the native
   Irish, all of whom were Roman Catholics, opposed to the
   English rule, as to that of a conquering minority. … Of the
   settlers, the Scotch Presbyterians shared the feelings of
   their brethren in their native country, and hated
   Episcopalians with the true religious fury. In the Irish
   Parliament the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly
   balanced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in numbers
   almost equalling the other two parties, had but few seats in
   the Parliament. The Episcopalians alone were hearty supporters
   of the house of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists
   were Whigs. James was in a most favourable position for
   tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman Catholic, he was much
   more acceptable to the native Irish than his predecessors had
   been.
{1771}
   Had he followed his true interests, he would have endeavoured,
   firstly, to unite together, as firmly as possible, the English
   settlers in Ireland, and secondly, by wise acts of mediation,
   to bridge over the differences between the English and Irish.
   Thus he might have welded them into one people. James,
   however, followed a directly opposite policy, and the results
   of this misgovernment of Ireland are visible at the present
   day. The Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of
   Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander of the forces.
   … Soon after his accession James recalled him, and the
   office of lord lieutenant was bestowed on his own
   brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon, whilst the post of general of
   the troops was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.
   Talbot … was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruffian, greedy and
   unprincipled; but in the eyes of James he had great virtues,
   for he was devoted to the Romish Church and to his sovereign.
   'Lying Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by James to
   the peerage as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord Clarendon was, from the
   time of his appointment, hampered by his associate," who,
   finally, in 1687, supplanted him, gathering the reins of
   government into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant,
   but with the power which Ormond had formerly held, although
   under a new title, that of lord deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel
   entirely subverted the old order of things. Protestants were
   disarmed and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The militia
   was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. The dispensing power
   in the royal prerogative set aside the statutes of the
   kingdom, and the bench and privy council were occupied by
   Roman Catholics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church
   remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted to Romish
   priests. Tithes were with impunity withheld from the clergy of
   the Establishment. … The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics
   towards the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost
   under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped to mete out to
   the latter a full measure of retaliation. The breach was
   widened owing to the fear and distrust openly showed by the
   Protestants, and has never since been effectually repaired."
   Before the occurrence of the Revolution which drove James from
   his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had disarmed all the
   Protestants, except those in the North. He had a large force
   of 20,000 men under arms, and of this force all the officers
   were trustworthy and Papists. He had filled the corporations
   of the towns with adherents of James. He had shown himself to
   be, as ever, tyrannical and unscrupulous. It was universally
   believed by the Protestants that a general massacre, a second
   St. Bartholomew, was intended. Even a day, December 9, was,
   they thought, fixed for the expected outbreak. The garrison of
   Londonderry had been temporarily withdrawn. On December 8,
   Lord Antrim arrived in command of 12,000 [1,200?] soldiers to
   form the new garrison. Without any warning, the Protestant
   apprentices ('the prentice boys of Derry') shut the gates of
   the city in his face. The inhabitants, in spite of the
   entreaties of the bishop and of the town council, refused to
   allow them to be opened. Antrim was compelled to withdraw.
   Thus one rallying-point was gained for the opponents of James.
   Another was found in Enniskillen, sixty miles south of
   Londonderry. Into these two towns poured all the Protestants
   from the surrounding districts. With these two exceptions, the
   boast of Tyrconnel that Ireland was true, was well founded."

      _E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts,
      chapters 10 and 13._

   "He [James II.] deliberately resolved, not merely to give to
   the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland the entire dominion of
   their own country, but also to use them as his instruments for
   setting up arbitrary government in England. The event was such
   as might have been foreseen. The colonists turned to bay with
   the stubborn hardihood of their race. The mother country
   justly regarded their cause as her own. Then came a desperate
   struggle for a tremendous stake. … The contest was terrible
   but short. The weaker went down. His fate was cruel; and yet
   for the cruelty with which he was treated there was, not
   indeed a defence, but an excuse: for though he suffered all
   that tyranny could inflict, he suffered nothing that he would
   not himself have inflicted. The effect of the insane attempt
   to subjugate England by means of Ireland was that the Irish
   became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the English. …
   The momentary ascendency of Popery produced such a series of
   barbarous laws against Popery as made the statute book of
   Ireland a proverb of infamy throughout Christendom. Such were
   the bitter fruits of the policy of James."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. O'Flanagan,
      Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland,
      chapter 28 (volume 1)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.
   Enniskillen and the Battle of Newton Butler.

   Enniskillen, then a village, surrounding an ancient castle,
   was, in 1688-89, one of the two rallying points of the
   Protestant colonists in Ireland, who supported the Revolution
   by which James II. was dethroned and William and Mary were
   crowned. The chief stronghold of their cause was Londonderry;
   but Enniskillen bore a scarcely less important part. "In
   December, 1688, Tyrconnel's troops, being two companies of
   Popish infantry, advanced upon Enniskillen. The inhabitants,
   reinforced by 200 foot and 150 horse, contributed by the
   neighbouring gentry, marched out to oppose them. Tyrconnel's
   men fled to Cavan. The Enniskilleners, then, arming themselves
   as well as they could, and converting all the country-houses
   round Lough Erne into garrisons, appointed Gustavus Hamilton
   their governor and resolved upon defence. … Early in May,
   1689, the Enniskilleners routed Tyrconnel's troops, sent from
   Connaught into Donegal. They next drove 1,500 men out of the
   County Cavan—destroyed the Castle of Ballincarrig—and then
   entered the County Meath, whence they carried off oxen and
   sheep. Colonel Hugh Sutherland was sent with a regiment of
   dragoons and two regiments of foot against the Enniskilleners,
   who, however, defeated them, and took Belturbet, where they
   found muskets, gunpowder, and provisions; but unfortunately
   they were unable to relieve Derry, then beleaguered and sorely
   distressed. The Enniskilleners held out against all attacks,
   and refused all terms of surrender. They were now assailed
   from various points; by Macarthy (then by James created
   Viscount Mountcashel) from the east, by another body from the
   west, and by the Duke of Berwick from the north.
{1772}
   The Enniskilleners sent to Colonel Kirke [commanding the
   English forces first sent to Ireland by William of Orange] who
   had arrived in Lough Foyle, and received from him some arms
   and ammunition; and Colonel Wolseley and Lieutenant-Colonel
   Berry came from him to their assistance. Colonel Wolseley took
   the command." Under Wolseley, the men of Enniskillen, 3,000
   strong, encountered 5,000 of the enemy, under Mountcashel,
   near the town of Newton Butler, on the 31st of July, three
   days after Derry had been relieved. Their victory was
   complete. "The whole Irish force was totally and hopelessly
   routed. Their slaughter was dreadful—l,500 killed, and 500
   drowned in Lough Erne, whither they were driven. Mountcashel
   was wounded and taken prisoner. The Enniskilleners lost only
   twenty killed and fifty wounded. They took 400 prisoners, some
   cannons, fourteen barrels of gunpowder, and all the colours
   and drums. … The victory became known at Strabane to the
   Irish army retreating from Derry, which thereupon broke up in
   confusion and fled to Omagh, and thence to Charlemont."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 12 (volume 3)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
   The War of the Revolution.
   The Orange conquest.

   Supported by a French fleet, supplied moderately with French
   gold, and accompanied by a picked body of French officers, for
   the organizing and disciplining of raw Irish troops, James II.
   landed in Ireland, at Kinsale, on the 12th of March, 1689, to
   take personal possession of the government still maintained
   there in his name. From Kinsale he hastened to Dublin, "and
   summoned a Parliament, which met on May 7, 1689, and sat until
   July 18. This Parliament of James has been described as a
   Parliament of Irish Celts, yet out of the 228 members of the
   House of Commons about one-fourth only belonged to the native
   race, and even including members of families Anglicized or of
   doubtful origin, not one-third of the House of Commons
   belonged to the so-called Celts. Of the thirty-two lay peers
   who attended, not more than two or three bore old Irish names.
   The four spiritual peers were Protestant bishops."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1, of Two Centuries of Irish History
      chapter 1._

   "The members of the House of Commons were almost all new men,
   completely inexperienced in public business and animated by
   the resentment of the bitterest wrongs. Many of them were sons
   of some of the 3,000 proprietors who without trial and without
   compensation had been deprived by the Act of Settlement of the
   estates of their ancestors. To all of them the confiscations
   of Ulster, the fraud of Strafford, the long train of
   calamities that followed were recent and vivid events. … It
   will hardly appear surprising to candid men that a Parliament
   so constituted and called together amid the excitement of a
   civil war, should have displayed much violence, much disregard
   for vested interests. Its measures, indeed, were not all
   criminal. By one Act which was far in advance of the age, it
   established perfect religious liberty in Ireland. … By
   another Act, repealing Poynings' law, and asserting its own
   legislative independence, it anticipated the doctrine of
   Molyneux, Swift, and Grattan. … A third measure abolished
   the payments to Protestant clergy in the corporate towns,
   while a fourth ordered that the Catholics throughout Ireland
   should henceforth pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical
   dues to their own priests and not to the Protestant clergy.
   The Protestants were still to pay their tithes to their own
   clergy. … Several other measures—most of them now only
   known by their titles—were passed for developing the
   resources of the country or remedying some great abuse. … If
   these had been the only measures of the Irish Parliament it
   would have left an eminently honourable reputation. But,
   unfortunately, one of its main objects was to re-establish at
   all costs the descendants of the old proprietors in their
   land, and to annul by measures of sweeping violence the
   grievous wrongs and spoliations their fathers and their
   grandfathers had undergone. The first and most important
   measure with this object was the repeal of the Acts of
   Settlement and Explanation. … The preamble asserts that the
   outbreak of 1641 had been solely due to the intolerable
   oppression and to the disloyal conduct of the Lords Justices
   and Puritan party, that the Catholics of Ireland before the
   struggle had concluded had been fully reconciled to the
   sovereign, that they had received from the sovereign a full
   and formal pardon, and that the royal word had been in
   consequence pledged to the restitution of their properties.
   This pledge by the Act of Settlement had been to a great
   extent broken, and the Irish legislators maintained that the
   twenty-four years which had elapsed since that Act had not
   annulled the rights of the old proprietors or their
   descendants. They maintained that these claims were not only
   valid but were prior to all others, and they accordingly
   enacted that the heirs of all persons who had possessed landed
   property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and who had been
   deprived of their inheritance by the Act of Settlement, should
   enter at once into possession of their old properties. … The
   long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken
   place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been
   mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the
   soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high
   treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689
   the great bulk of the English proprietors of Irish soil were
   in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore
   legally guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now
   proceeded to follow the example of the British Governments,
   and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real
   estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the
   three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who
   aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be
   forfeited and vested in the Crown, and from this source they
   proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of
   Settlement. … The measure of repeal, however, was speedily
   followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent
   injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the
   latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete
   overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list
   divided into several groups, but containing in all more than
   2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be
   attainted of high treason. …
{1773}
   Few persons will question the tyranny of an Act which in this
   manner made a very large proportion of the Irish landlords
   liable to the penalties of high treason, unless they could
   prove their innocence, even though the only crime that could
   be alleged against them was that of living out of Ireland in a
   time of civil war. … It is … a curious illustration of the
   carelessness or partiality with which Irish history is
   written, that no popular historian has noticed that five days
   before this Act, which has been described as 'without a
   parallel in the history of civilised countries,' was
   introduced into the Irish Parliament, a Bill which appears, in
   its essential characteristics, to have been precisely similar
   was introduced into the Parliament of England; that it passed
   the English House of Commons; that it passed, with slight
   amendments, the English House of Lords; and that it was only
   lost, in its last stage, by a prorogation. … These facts
   will show how far the Irish Act of Attainder was from having
   the unique character that has been ascribed to it. It is not
   possible to say how that Act would have been executed, for the
   days of Jacobite ascendency were now few and evil. The
   Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of July, one of its last
   Acts being to vest in the King the property of those who were
   still absentees."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

   While James' Irish Parliament sat, "sufficient men had
   presented themselves to form fifty regiments of infantry and a
   proportionate number of cavalry. But … these levies were
   undisciplined, and their officers, with few exceptions, were
   without military training and experience. There were no
   arsenals, and in the government stores only about 1,000
   serviceable firearms were found; there was no artillery and no
   supply of ammunition. … What coin was in circulation was
   small in quantity and debased in quality. James's Government
   issued a brass coinage, which had no currency outside the
   kingdom, and even within it practically circulated only among
   the partisans of James, and could not consequently help in
   purchasing arms, ammunition, and military stores, which had to
   be imported from without. Under such unfavourable
   circumstances the war began. The first campaign comprised the
   siege, or rather blockade, of Derry—for the Irish, having no
   artillery, could not undertake a regular siege—which was
   gallantly defended by the Scoto-English colonists; the check
   of Mountcashel by the Enniskilleners, who had followed the
   example of Derry; the landing of Schomberg with an army of
   Dutch, French Protestants, and English, who went into winter
   quarters near Dundalk, where he lost nearly half his troops
   from sickness; and, lastly, the military parade of James, who
   marched out from Dublin, and, failing to force Schomberg to
   fight, went into winter quarters himself. The result of the
   campaign was the successful defence of Derry, and the signal
   exhibition of James's incapacity as a general. At the opening
   of the second campaign, an exchange of troops was made between
   James and Louis XIV., with the view of giving prestige to the
   cause of the former. Six thousand French troops, under a
   drawing-room general, the well-known Comte de Lauzun, arrived
   in Ireland, and the same ships carried back an equal number of
   Irish troops—the brigade of Mountcashel, the best-trained and
   best-equipped body of troops in the Irish army. … The wasted
   army of Schomberg was strengthened by the arrival of William
   himself on June 14, 1690, with a considerable force. The
   united armies, composed of the most heterogeneous materials,
   one-half being foreigners of various nationalities, amounted
   to between 36,000 and 48,000 men. … To meet William, James
   set out from Dublin with an army of about 23,000 men. The
   French troops and the Irish cavalry were good, but the
   infantry was not well trained, and the artillery consisted
   only of twelve field-pieces. The battle took place on July 1,
   1690, at the passage of the River Boyne, a few miles above
   Drogheda the rout of James's army being complete and its loss
   about 1,500 men. William lost but 500; but the number included
   Schomberg, one of the great soldiers of his age. James was
   among the first in the flight, and he scarcely paused until he
   had put himself on board of a French frigate and quitted
   Ireland forever]. The Irish fell back on Dublin and thence
   retired behind the line of the Shannon. About 20,000
   half-armed infantry and about 3,500 horse concentrated at
   Limerick. The English having failed in taking Athlone, the key
   of the upper Shannon, William gathered together about 38,000
   men in the neighbourhood of Limerick. Lauzun having declared
   that Limerick could not be defended, and might be taken with
   roasted apples, withdrew with the whole of the French troops
   to Galway, to await the first opportunity of returning to
   France. On August 9, 1690, William moved his whole army close
   to the town and summoned the garrison to surrender; but having
   failed, with a loss of 2,000 men, to carry the town by
   assault, he raised the siege and went to England. The third
   and last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish received many
   promises of assistance from Louis XIV., but his ministers
   fulfilled few or none of them. With scarcely any loss of men,
   and with a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish
   war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran army of 40,000
   men out of his way. … The campaign opened in the beginning
   of June with the advance of Ginkel [William's general] on
   Athlone. The chief defence of the place was the River Shannon,
   the works being weak, and mounting only a few field-pieces;
   yet so obstinately was the place defended that, but for the
   discovery of a ford, and some neglect on the part of D'Usson,
   who commanded, it is probable that the siege would have been
   raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the heap of ruins.
   … St. Ruth [the French officer commanding the Irish] moved
   his camp to Aughrim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the
   final battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, 1691. … St. Ruth
   was killed at a critical moment, and his army defeated, with a
   loss of about 4,000 men, the English loss being about half
   that number. Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to
   Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including the whole of the
   cavalry, fell back on Limerick, which surrendered, after a
   gallant resistance, in October, 1691."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapters 12, 16 and 17._

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapters 5 and 21-23._

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, books 2-5 (volume 2)._

{1774}

IRELAND: A. D. 1691.
   The Treaty of Limerick and its violation.

   The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of a treaty—or
   of two treaties, one military, the other civil—formally
   negotiated for the terminating of the war. This Treaty of
   Limerick was signed, October 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel,
   William's general, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on
   behalf of the English, and by Sarsfield and other chieftains
   on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief provisions were: 'The Roman
   Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the
   exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of
   Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles
   II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit
   them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to
   procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that
   particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the
   account of their said religion. All the inhabitants or
   residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the
   possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in
   arms under any commission of King James, or those authorized
   by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,
   Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the
   commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters that belong
   to the Irish regiments now in being that are treated with and
   who are not prisoners of war, or having taken protection, and
   who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and
   their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy
   all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and
   all the rights, titles, and interest, privileges and
   immunities, which they, or every or any of them, held,
   enjoyed, and were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the
   reign of King Charles II.' … A general pardon was to be
   granted to all persons comprised within the treaty, and the
   Lords Justices and the generals commanding King William's army
   were to use their best endeavours to get the attainders of any
   of them attainted repealed. … In the copy of the rough draft
   engrossed for signature the following words, 'and all such as
   are under their protection in the said counties,' which
   immediately followed the enumeration of the several counties
   in the second article, were omitted. This omission, whether
   the result of design or accident, was, however, rectified by
   King William when confirming the treaty in February, 1692. The
   confirming instrument stated that the words had been casually
   omitted; that the omission was not discovered till the
   articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the town
   was surrendered; and that the Lords Justices or General
   Ginkel, or one of them, had promised that the clause should be
   made good, since it was within the intention of the
   capitulation, and had been inserted in the rough draft.
   William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm the said
   omitted words.' The colonists, or at all events the 'new
   interests'—that is, those who shared or expected to share in
   the confiscations—were indignant at the concessions made to
   the native race."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 1._

   "The advantages secured to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick
   were moderate. But when the flower of the Irish army had
   withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be hanged without
   ceremony, they began to look inordinate. The parliament of
   Cromwellian settlers and Government officials in Dublin having
   excluded Catholic members, by requiring from them an oath of
   abjuration, in direct infringement of one of the articles of
   surrender, were free to proceed at their discretion. They
   first passed a stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms,
   and another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops,
   vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and regulars of
   whatever condition to depart from the kingdom on pain of
   transportation,' and then proceeded to consider the treaty.
   They … resolved by a decisive majority not to keep the
   conditions affecting the Catholics. William … struggled for
   a time to preserve his honour; but it is not convenient for a
   new king to be in conflict with his friends, and after a time
   he gave way. … In Ireland the Treaty of Limerick can never
   be forgotten; it is one of the title deeds of the Irish race
   to their inheritance in their native land. For more than a
   century its sordid and shameless violation was as common a
   reproach to England on the Continent as the partition of
   Poland has been a reproach to Russia in our own day."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 155-156
      (or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland")._

   "The Protestant rancour of parliament was more powerful than
   the good will of the prince. The most vital articles of the
   capitulation were ignored, especially in all cases where the
   Catholic religion and the liberties granted to its professors
   were concerned; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as traitors and
   rebels,—by which declamation a fresh confiscation of
   1,060,000 acres was immediately effected. … It has been
   calculated that in 1692 the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled
   the Protestants in number, owned only one-eleventh of the
   soil, and that the most wretched and unproductive portion."

      _A. Perraud,
      Ireland under English Rule,
      introduction, section 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.
   The peace of despair.
   A century of national death.
   Oppression of the Penal Laws.

   "By the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sarsfield's
   soldiers who would were suffered to follow him to France; and
   10,000 men, the whole of his force, chose exile rather than
   life in a land where all hope of national freedom was lost.
   When the wild cry of the women who stood watching their
   departure was hushed, the silence of death settled down upon
   Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace,
   but the peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible legal
   tyranny under which a nation has ever groaned avenged the
   rising under Tyrconnell. The conquered people, in Swift's
   bitter words of contempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers
   of water' to their conquerors; but till the very eve of the
   French Revolution Ireland ceased to be a source of terror and
   anxiety to England."

      _J. H. Green,
      Short History of England,
      chapter 9, section 8._

   "In Ireland there was peace. The domination of the colonists
   was absolute. The native population was tranquil with the
   ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and of despair. There were
   indeed outrages, robberies, fireraisings, assassinations. But
   more than a century passed away without one general
   insurrection. During that century, two rebellions were raised
   in Great Britain by the adherents of the House of Stuart. But
   neither when the elder Pretender was crowned at Scone, nor
   when the younger held his court at Holyrood, was the standard
   of that House set up in Connaught or Munster.
{1775}
   In 1745, indeed, when the Highlanders were marching towards
   London, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were so quiet that the
   Lord Lieutenant could, without the smallest risk, send several
   regiments across Saint George's Channel to reinforce the army
   of the Duke of Cumberland. Nor was this submission the effect
   of content, but of mere stupefaction and brokenness of heart.
   The iron had entered into the soul. The memory of past
   defeats, the habit of daily enduring insult and oppression,
   had cowed the spirits of the unhappy nation. There were indeed
   Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy and ambition;
   but they were to be found everywhere except in Ireland,—at
   Versailles and at Saint lldefonso, in the armies of Frederic
   and in the armies of Maria Theresa. One exile became a Marshal
   of France. Another became Prime Minister of Spain. If he had
   staid in his native land he would have been regarded as an
   inferior by all the ignorant and worthless squireens who had
   signed the Declaration against Transubstantiation. …
   Scattered over all Europe were to be found brave Irish
   generals, dexterous Irish diplomatists, Irish Counts, Irish
   Barons, Irish Knights … who, if they had remained in the
   house of bondage, could not have been ensigns of marching
   regiments or freemen of petty corporations. These men, the
   natural chiefs of their race, having been withdrawn, what
   remained was utterly helpless and passive. A rising of the
   Irishry against the Englishry was no more to be apprehended
   than a rising of the women and children against the men."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17. _

   "An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman Catholics of the means of
   educating their children, either at home or abroad, and of the
   privilege of being guardians either of their own or of any
   other person's children.' Another Act of the same year
   deprived the Roman Catholics of the right of bearing arms, or
   of keeping any horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of
   1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catholic priest from
   Ireland. The Parliament, which had imposed these disabilities
   on Irish Roman Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of
   Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with the safety
   and welfare of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom,' and
   by a gross act of injustice omitted the whole of the first of
   these articles, and the important paragraph in the second
   article which had been accidentally omitted from the original
   copy of the Treaty, and subsequently restored to it by letters
   patent under the Great Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the
   propriety or impropriety of the conditions on which the
   surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is difficult to read
   the story of their repudiation without a deep sense of shame.
   Three other acts relating to the Roman Catholics were passed
   during the reign of William. An Act of 1697 forbade the
   intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act of 1698
   prevented Papists from being solicitors. Another Act of the
   same year stopped their employment as gamekeepers. William
   died; and the breach of faith which he had countenanced was
   forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation which
   disgraced the reign of his successor. Two Acts passed in this
   reign, for preventing the further growth of Popery, were
   styled by Burke the 'ferocious Acts of Anne.' By the first of
   these Acts a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred from
   selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion of his estate:
   however young the son might be, he was to be taken from his
   father's hands and confided to the care of a Protestant
   relation. The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant heir
   was to be divided equally among his sons. The Papist was
   declared incapable of purchasing real estate or of taking land
   on lease for more than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared
   incapable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. He was
   disqualified from holding any office, civil or military. With
   twenty exceptions, a Papist was forbidden to reside in
   Limerick or Galway. Advowsons the property of Papists were
   vested in the Crown. Religious intolerance had now apparently
   done its uttermost. … But the laws failed. Their severity
   insured their failure. … The first of the ferocious Acts of
   Anne was almost openly disregarded. … Its failure only
   induced the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement it with
   harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had deprived the Papist
   of the guardianship of his apostate child. An Act of 1709
   empowered the Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to
   discover his estate, and authorized the Court to make an order
   for the maintenance of the apostate child out of the proceeds
   of it. The Act of 1704 had made it illegal for a Papist to
   take lands on lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from
   receiving a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the
   registry of priests. The Act of 1709 forbade their officiating
   in any parish except that in which they were registered.
   These, however, were the least reprehensible features in the
   Act of 1709. Its worst features were the encouragement which
   it gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The wife of a
   Papist, if she became a Protestant, was to receive a jointure
   out of her husband's estate. A Popish priest abandoning his
   religion was to receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were
   to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, and
   schoolmasters. Two justices might compel any Papist to state
   on oath where and when he had heard mass, who had officiated
   at it, and who had been present at it. Encouragement was thus
   given to informers; bribes were thus held out to apostates;
   and Parliament trusted to the combined effects of bribery and
   intimidation to stamp out the last remnant of Popery. The
   penal code, however, was not yet complete. The armoury of
   intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of George I.
   disabled Papists from serving in the Irish militia, but
   compelled them to find Protestant substitutes; to pay double
   towards the support of the militia, and rendered their horses
   liable to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George II.
   the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or solicitors
   marrying Papists were deemed Papists; all marriages between
   Protestants and Papists were annulled; and Popish priests
   celebrating any illegal marriages were condemned to be hanged.
   By an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver up or
   declare their arms were liable to be placed in the pillory or
   to be whipped, as the Court should think proper. Such were the
   laws which the intolerance of a minority imposed on the
   majority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they had
   not even the bare merit of success. …
{1776}
   'The great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young [1780],
   'stripped of their all, were more enraged than converted: they
   adhered to the persuasion of their forefathers with the
   steadiest and the most determined zeal; while the priests,
   actuated by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made
   proselytes among the common Protestants in defiance of every
   danger. … Those laws have crushed all the industry and
   wrested most of the property from the Catholics; but the
   religion triumphs; it is thought to increase.'"

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      Historical Notice of Penal Laws against Roman Catholics._

      _A. Perraud,
      Ireland under English Rule: introduction._

      _E. Burke,
      Letter to a Peer of Ireland on the Penal Laws
      (Works, volume 4)._

      _E. Burke,
      Fragments of a Tract on the Popery Laws
      (Works, volume 6)._

      _A. J. Thébaud,
      The Irish Race,
      chapter 12._

IRELAND: A. D, 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines in Munster.

      See PALATINES.

IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.
   Wood's halfpence.
   The Drapier's Letters.

   "A patent had been given [1722, by the Walpole administration]
   to a certain William Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper
   coinage. Many complaints had been made, and in September,
   1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses of Parliament,
   declaring that the patent had been obtained by clandestine and
   false representations; that it was mischievous to the country;
   and that Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. They
   were pacified by vague promises; but Walpole went on with the
   scheme on the strength of a favourable report of a committee
   of the Privy Council; and the excitement was already serious
   when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Letters, which
   give him his chief title to eminence as a patriotic agitator.
   Swift either shared or took advantage of the general belief
   that the mysteries of the currency are unfathomable to the
   human intelligence. … There is, however, no real mystery
   about the halfpence. The small coins which do not form part of
   the legal-tender may be considered primarily as counters. A
   penny is a penny, so long as twelve are change for a shilling.
   It is not in the least necessary for this purpose that the
   copper contained in the twelve penny pieces should be worth or
   nearly worth a shilling. … At the present day bronze worth
   only twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. … The
   effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of copper worth about
   £60,000 became worth £100,800 in the shape of halfpenny
   pieces. There was, therefore, a balance of about £40,000, to
   pay for the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste to
   get rid of this by putting more copper in the coins; but if so
   large a profit arose from the transaction, it would go to
   somebody. At the present day it would be brought into the
   national treasury. This was not the way in which business was
   done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a year for fourteen
   years to the Crown. But £14,000 still leaves a large margin
   for profit. 'What was to become of it. According to the
   admiring biographer of Sir R. Walpole the patent had been
   originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess of Kendal,
   a lady whom the King delighted to honour. … It was right and
   proper that a profit should be made on the transaction, but
   shameful that it should be divided between the King's mistress
   and William Wood, and that the bargain should be struck
   without consulting the Irish representatives, and maintained
   in, spite of their protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be
   allowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence in the
   pocket of every Irish beggar. A more disgraceful transaction
   could hardly be imagined, or one more calculated to justify
   Swift's view of the selfishness and corruption of the English
   rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work in
   characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous audacity of
   statement, guided by the keenest strategical instinct. … The
   patent was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate himself
   upon a complete victory. … The Irish succeeded in rejecting
   a real benefit at the cost of paying Wood the profit which he
   would have made, had he been allowed to confer it."

      _L. Stephen,
      Swift (English Men of Letters),
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Swift,
      Works (Scott's edition),
      volume 6._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      chapter 15._

IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
   Whiteboys.
   Oak Boys.
   Steel Boys.
   Peep of Day Boys.
   Catholic Defenders.

   "The peasantry continued to regard the land as their own; and
   with the general faith that wrong cannot last forever, they
   waited for the time when they would once more have possession
   of it. 'The lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote
   Arthur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over the
   kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands which were once
   their own.' … With the growth of what was called
   civilization, absenteeism, the worst disorder of the country,
   had increased. … The rise in prices, the demand for salt
   beef and salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were
   revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The great
   limestone pastures of Limerick and Tipperary, the fertile
   meadow universally, was falling into the hands of capitalist
   graziers, in whose favour the landlords, or the landlords'
   agents, were evicting the smaller tenants. … To the
   peasantry these men were a curse. Common lands, where their
   own cows had been fed, were inclosed and taken from them. The
   change from tillage to grazing destroyed their employment.
   Their sole subsistence was from their potato gardens, the
   rents of which were heavily raised, while, by a curious
   mockery of justice, the grass lands were exempt from tithe,
   and the burden of maintaining the rectors and vicars of the
   Established Church was cast exclusively on the Catholic poor.
   Among a people who are suffering under a common wrong there is
   a sympathy of resentment which links them together without
   visible or discoverable bond. In the spring of 1760 Tipperary
   was suddenly overrun by bands of midnight marauders. Who they
   were was a mystery. Rumours reached England of insurgent
   regiments drilling in the moonlight; of French officers
   observed passing and repassing the Channel; but no French
   officer could be detected in Munster. The most rigid search
   discovered no stands of arms, such as soldiers use or could
   use. This only was certain, that white figures were seen in
   vast numbers, like moving clouds, flitting silently at night
   over field and moor, leaving behind them the tracks of where
   they had passed in levelled fences and houghed and moaning
   cattle; where the owners were specially hateful, in blazing
   homesteads, and the inmates' bodies blackening in the ashes.
   Arrests were generally useless. The country was sworn to
   secrecy.
{1777}
   Through the entire central plains of Ireland the people were
   bound by the most solemn oaths never to reveal the name of a
   confederate, or give evidence in a court of justice. … Thus
   it was long uncertain how the movement originated, who were
   its leaders, and whether there was one or many. Letters
   signed by Captain Dwyer or Joanna Meskell were left at the
   doors of obnoxious persons, ordering lands to be abandoned
   under penalties. If the commands were uncomplied with, the
   penalties were inexorably inflicted. … Torture usually being
   preferred to murder, male offenders against the Whiteboys were
   houghed like their cattle, or their tongues were torn out by
   the roots."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   The Whiteboys took their name from the practice of wearing a
   white shirt drawn over their other clothing, when they were
   out upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy movement
   took place about 1761-2. … The injustice which led to the
   formation of the 'Oak Boys,' one of the best known of the
   colonial societies, was duty work on roads. Every householder
   was bound to give six days' labour in making and repairing the
   public roads; and if he had a horse, six days' labour of his
   horse. It was complained that this duty work was only levied
   on the poor, and that they were compelled to work on private
   job roads, and even upon what were the avenues and farm roads
   of the gentry. The name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was
   derived from the members in their raids wearing an oak branch
   in their hats. The organization spread rapidly over the
   greater part of Ulster. Although the grievances were common to
   Protestant and Catholic workmen, and there was nothing
   religious in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, the
   society was an exclusively Protestant body, owing to the total
   absence at the period of any association between the
   Protestants and Catholics. … The Steel Boys, or Hearts of
   Steel Boys, followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also were
   exclusively Protestant; the origin of this organization was
   the extravagance and profligacy of a bad landlord, the
   representative of the great land thief, Chichester, of the
   Plantation of King James I. … The Oak Boys and Steel Boys
   did not last long."

      _W. K. Sullivan,
      part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,
      chapter 5, with foot-note._

   The landlord here referred to, as having provoked the
   organization of the Steel Boys, was the Marquis of Donegal.
   "Many of his Antrim leases having fallen in simultaneously, he
   demanded £100,000 in fines for the renewal of them. The
   tenants, all Protestants, offered the interest of the money in
   addition to the rent.' It could not be. Speculative Belfast
   capitalists paid the fine and took the lands over the heads of
   the tenants, to sublet. … The most substantial of the
   expelled tenantry gathered their effects together and sailed
   to join their countrymen in the New World. … Between those
   who were too poor to emigrate, and the Catholics who were in
   possession of their homes, there grew a protracted feud, which
   took form at last in the conspiracy of the Peep of Day Boys;
   in the fierce and savage expulsion of the intruders, who were
   bidden to go to hell or Connaught; and in the
   counter-organization of the Catholic Defenders, which spread
   over the whole island, and made the army of insurrection in
   1798."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 5, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
   Concession of Legislative independence by the
   so-called Constitution of 1782.

   "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Over in the
   American colonies Mr. Washington and his rebels were pressing
   hard upon the troops of King George. More than one garrison
   had been compelled to surrender, more than one general had
   given up his bright sword to a revolutionary leader. On the
   hither side of the Atlantic the American flag was scarcely
   less dreaded than at Yorktown and Saratoga. … Ireland,
   drained of troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul
   Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon Ireland were
   dreaded; if such descents had been made the island was
   practically defenceless. An alarmed Mayor of Belfast,
   appealing to the Government for military aid, was informed
   that no more serious and more formidable assistance could be
   rendered to the chief city of the North than might be given by
   half a troop of dismounted cavalry and half a troop of
   invalids. If the French-American enemy would consent to be
   scared by such a muster, well and good; if not Belfast, and
   for the matter of that, all Ireland, must look to itself.
   Thereupon Ireland, very promptly and decisively, did look to
   itself. A Militia Act was passed empowering the formation of
   volunteer corps—consisting, of course, solely of
   Protestants—for the defence of the island. A fever of
   military enthusiasm swept over the country; north and south
   and east and west men caught up arms, nominally to resist the
   French, really, though they knew it not, to effect one of the
   greatest constitutional revolutions in history. Before a
   startled Government could realise what was occurring 60,000
   men were under arms. For the first time since the surrender of
   Limerick there was an armed force in Ireland able and willing
   to support a national cause. Suddenly, almost in the twinkling
   of an eye, Ireland found herself for the first time for
   generations in the possession of a well-armed,
   well-disciplined, and well-generalled military force. The
   armament that was organised to insure the safety of England
   was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. … All talk
   of organisation to resist foreign invasion was silenced; in
   its place the voice of the nation was heard loudly calling for
   the redress of its domestic grievances. Their leader was
   Charlemont; Grattan and Flood were their principal colonels."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Ireland Since the Union,
      chapter 3._

   "When the Parliament met, Grattan moved as an amendment to the
   Address, 'that it was by free export and import only that the
   Nation was to be saved from impending ruin'; and a corps of
   Volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Leinster, lined Dame
   Street as the Speaker and the Commons walked in procession to
   the Castle. Another demonstration of Volunteers in College
   Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th November,
   1779) a riotous mob clamoured for Free Trade at the very doors
   of the House. … These events resulted in immediate success.
   Lord North proposed in the British Parliament three articles
   of relief to Irish trade—

   (1) to allow free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks;
   (2) to allow a free export of glass;
   (3) to allow, under certain conditions, a free trade to all
   the British colonies.

{1778}

   When the news reached Ireland excessive joy prevailed. … But
   this was only a beginning. Poynings' Law, and the 6th of
   George I., required to be swept away too, so that Ireland
   might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self-government.
   Grattan moved his two famous resolutions:—

   1. That the King, with the consent of the Lords and Commons of
   Ireland, is alone competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

   2. That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united under
   one Sovereign.

   In supporting these resolutions, Grattan cited England's
   dealings with America, to show what Ireland too might effect
   by claiming her just rights. … The Earl of Carlisle became
   Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as Secretary. Viewing England's
   embroilment in war—in America, in India, with France, and
   Spain, and Holland—the Irish Volunteers, whose numbers had
   swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 men, held meetings
   and reviews in various parts of the country. … The 16th of
   April, 1782, was a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in
   a city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, and
   banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering in the wind,
   Grattan, in an amendment to the Address which was always
   presented to the King at the opening of Parliament, moved,
   'That Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate
   Parliament, and that this Parliament alone has a right to make
   laws for her.' On the 17th of May, the two Secretaries of
   State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and Charles James Fox in
   the Commons of Great Britain—proposed the repeal of the 6th
   of George I., a statute which declared the right of the
   English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The English
   Government frankly and fully acceded to the demands of
   Ireland. Four points were granted—

   (1) an Independent Irish Parliament;
   (2) the abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the English
   Privy Council to alter Irish Bills;
   (3) the introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill;
   (4) the abolition of the right of appeal to England from the
   Irish law courts.

   These concessions were announced to the Irish Parliament at
   once: in their joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000
   men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had at last achieved
   political freedom. Peace and prosperity seemed about to bless
   the land. … That there might be no misunderstanding as to
   the deliberate intention of the English Parliament in granting
   Irish legislative independence, Lord Shelburne had passed an
   Act of Renunciation, declaring that 'the Right claimed by the
   people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His
   Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is hereby declared
   to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no
   time hereafter be questioned or questionable.' During the same
   session (1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by Luke
   Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount Mountjoy, were
   passed. These measures gave Catholics the right to buy
   freeholds, to teach schools, and to educate their children as
   they pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now extended to
   Ireland; and marriages by presbyterian ministers were made
   legal."

      _W. F. Collier,
      History of Ireland for Schools,
      period 5, chapter 3._

   "Had the Irish demanded a complete separation it would have
   been yielded without resistance. It would have been better had
   it been. The two countries would have immediately joined on
   terms of equality and of mutual confidence and respect. But
   the more the English Cabinet gave way the less were the Irish
   disposed to press their advantage. A feeling of warm
   attachment to England rapidly took the place of distrust.
   There never existed in Ireland so sincere and friendly a
   spirit of spontaneous union with England as at this moment,
   when the formal bond of union was almost wholly dissolved.
   From the moment when England made a formal surrender of her
   claim to govern Ireland a series of inroads commenced on the
   various interests supposed to be left to their own free
   development by that surrender. Ireland had not, like England,
   a body of Cabinet Ministers responsible to her Parliament. The
   Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Secretary held their offices and
   received their instructions from the English minister. There
   was greater need than ever before for a bribed majority in the
   Irish Commons, and the machinery for securing and managing it
   remained intact."

      _W. A. O'Conor,
      History of the Irish People,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 2 (volume 2)._

   "The history of these memorable eighteen years [1782-1800] has
   never been written, and yet these years are the … key to
   Irish political opinion in the 19th [century]. The Government
   which granted the constitution of 1782 began to conspire
   against it immediately. They had taken Poynings' Act away from
   the beginning of its proceedings, and they clapped it on to
   the end of its proceedings, as effectually as if the change
   had not been made. They developed in the Irish mind that
   distrust of all government which has made it so turbulent and
   so docile—turbulent to its administrators, docile to its
   popular leaders."

      _J. E. Thorold Rogers,
      Ireland
      (A. Reid, editor), p. 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: Henry Grattan._

      _J. G. MacCarthy,
      Henry Grattan._

IRELAND: A. D. 1784.
   Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders.

   "Disturbances … commenced in the north between two parties
   called Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders. They originated in 1784
   among some country people, who appear to have been all
   Protestants or Presbyterians; but Catholics having sided with
   one of the parties, the quarrel quickly grew into a religious
   feud, and spread from the county of Armagh, where it
   commenced, to the neighbouring districts of Tyrone and Down.
   Both parties belonged to the humblest classes of the
   community. The Protestant party were well armed, and
   assembling in numbers, attacked the houses of Catholics under
   pretence of searching for arms; insulting their persons, and
   breaking their furniture. These wanton outrages were usually
   committed at an early hour in the morning, whence the name of
   Peep-o'-Day Boys; but the faction was also known as
   'Protestant Boys,' and 'wreckers,' and ultimately merged in
   the Orange Society."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      p. 722._

IRELAND: A. D. 1793.
   Passage of the Catholic Relief Bill.

   "On February 4 (1793) Hobart [Chief Secretary] moved for leave
   to bring in his Catholic Relief Bill, and stated the nature of
   its provisions. It was of a kind which only a year before
   would have appeared utterly impossible, and which was in the
   most glaring opposition to all the doctrines which the
   Government and its partisans had of late been urging. … This
   great measure was before Parliament, with several
   intermissions, for rather more than five weeks. …
{1779}
   The vast preponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to
   Catholics, though there were grave differences as to the degree,
   and speakers of the highest authority represented the genuine
   Protestant feeling of the country as being in its favour. …
   Few things in Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable
   than the facility with which this great measure was carried,
   though it was in all its aspects thoroughly debated. It passed
   its second reading in the House of Commons with only a single
   negative. It was committed with only three negatives, and in
   the critical divisions on its clauses the majorities were at
   least two to one. The qualification required to authorise a
   Catholic to bear arms was raised in committee on the motion of
   the Chancellor, and in addition to the oath of allegiance of
   1774, a new oath was incorporated in the Bill, copied from one
   of the declarations of the Catholics, and abjuring certain
   tenets which had been ascribed to them, among others the
   assertion that the infallibility of the Pope was an article of
   their faith. For the rest the Bill became law almost exactly
   in the form in which it was originally designed. It swept away
   the few remaining disabilities relating to property which grew
   out of the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like
   Protestants for members of Parliament and magistrates in
   cities or boroughs; to become elected members of all
   corporations except Trinity College; to keep arms subject to
   some specified conditions; to hold all civil and military
   offices in the kingdom from which they were not specifically
   excluded; to hold the medical professorships on the foundation
   of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees and hold offices in any
   mixed college connected with the University of Dublin that
   might hereafter be founded. It also threw open to them the
   degrees of the University, enabling the King to alter its
   statutes to that effect. A long clause enumerated the prizes
   which were still withheld. Catholics might not sit in either
   House of Parliament; they were excluded from almost all
   Government and judicial positions; they could not be Privy
   Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of Trinity College,
   sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals of the staff. Nearly
   every post of ambition was still reserved for Protestants, and
   the restrictions weighed most heavily on the Catholics who
   were most educated and most able. In the House of Lords as in
   the House of Commons the Bill passed with little open
   opposition, but a protest, signed among other peers by
   Charlemont, was drawn up against it. … The Catholic Relief
   Bill received the royal assent in April, 1793, and in the same
   month the Catholic Convention dissolved itself. Before doing
   so it passed a resolution recommending the Catholics 'to
   co-operate in all loyal and constitutional means' to obtain
   parliamentary reform. … The Catholic prelates in their
   pastorals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. The
   United Irishmen on their side issued a proclamation warmly
   congratulating the Catholics on the measure for their relief,
   but also urging in passionate strains that parliamentary
   reform was the first of needs."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 25 (volume 6)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
   Organization of the United Irishmen.
   Attempted French invasions.
   The rising of '98.

   "Nothing could be less sinister than the original aims and
   methods of the Society of United Irishmen, which was conceived
   in the idea of uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit
   of the same object—a repeal of the penal laws, and a
   (parliamentary) reform including in itself an extension of the
   right of suffrage.' This union was founded at Belfast, in
   1791, by Theobald Wolfe Tone, a young barrister of English
   descent, and, like the majority of the United Irishmen, a
   Protestant. Some months later a Dublin branch was founded, the
   chairman being the hon. Simon Butler, a Protestant gentleman
   of high character, and the secretary a tradesman named James
   Napper Tandy. The society grew rapidly, and branches were
   formed throughout Ulster and Leinster. The religious strife of
   the Orange boys and Defenders was a great trouble to the
   United men, who felt that these creed animosities among
   Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause than any
   corruption of parliament or coercion of government could
   possibly be. Ireland, united, would be quite capable of
   fighting her own battles, but these party factions rendered
   her contemptible and weak. The society accordingly set itself
   the impossible task of drawing together the Defenders and the
   Orange men. Catholic emancipation—one of the great objects of
   the union—naturally appealed very differently to the rival
   parties: it was the great wish of the Defenders, the chief
   dread of the Orangemen. Both factions were composed of the
   poorest and most ignorant peasantry in Ireland, men whose
   political views did not soar above the idea that 'something
   should be done for old Ireland.' The United Irishmen devoted
   themselves to the regeneration of both parties, but the
   Orangemen would have none of them, and the Protestant United
   men found themselves drifting into partnership with the
   Catholic Defenders. To gain influence with this party, Tandy
   took the Defenders' oath. He was informed against; and, as to
   take an illegal oath was then a capital offence in Ireland, he
   had to fly for his life to America. This adventure made Tandy
   the hero of the Defenders, who now joined the union in great
   numbers; but the whole business brought the society into
   disrepute, and connected it with the Defenders, who, like the
   Orange boys, were merely a party of outrage. … One night in
   the May of '94 a government raid was made upon the premises of
   the union. The officers of the society were arrested, their
   papers seized, the type of their newspaper destroyed, and the
   United Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal
   organisation. Towards the close of this year all need for a
   reform society seemed to have passed. Fitzwilliam was made
   viceroy, and emancipation and reform seemed assured. His
   sudden recall, the reversal of his appointments, the rejection
   of Grattan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old coercive
   system, convinced the United men of the powerlessness of
   peaceful agitation to check the growth of the system of
   government by corruption. They accordingly reorganised the
   union, but as a secret society, and with the avowed aim of
   separating Ireland from the British empire. The Fitzwilliam
   affair had greatly strengthened the union, which was joined by
   many men of high birth and position, among them lord Edward
   Fitzgerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and Arthur
   O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, both of whom had been
   members of the House of Commons. … But the ablest man of the
   party was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the elder
   brother of Robert Emmet.
{1780}
   The society gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 members,
   but throughout its existence it was perfectly riddled with
   spies and informers, by whom government was supplied with a
   thorough knowledge of its doings. It became known to Pitt that
   the French government had sent an Englishman, named Jackson,
   as an emissary to Ireland. Jackson was convicted of treason,
   and hanged, and Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his
   guilt … to find it prudent to fly to America. But before
   leaving Ireland he arranged with the directors of the union to
   go from America to France, and to try to persuade the French
   government to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation.
   While Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris,
   government, to meet the military development of the society,
   placed Ulster and Leinster under a stringent Insurrection Act;
   torture was employed to wring confession from suspected
   persons, and the Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted
   at free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. The
   barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people of the northern
   provinces into a state of fury. … In the meantime the
   indomitable Tone—unknown, without credentials, without
   influence, and ignorant of the French language—had persuaded
   the French government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and
   40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest for Bantry Bay
   on the 16th December, 1796. Ireland was now in the same
   position as England had been when William of Orange had
   appeared outside Torbay. Injustice, corruption, and oppression
   had in both cases goaded the people into rebellion. A calm sea
   and a fierce gale made the difference between the English
   patriot of 1688 and the Irish traitor of 1796. Had the sea
   been calm in the Christmas week of '96, nothing could have
   stopped the French from marching on to Dublin, but just as the
   ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild a wind sprang up that they
   were driven out to sea, and blown and buffetted about. For a
   month they tossed about within sight of land, but the storm
   did not subside, and, all chance of landing seeming as far off
   as ever, they put back into the French port."

      _Wm. S. Gregg,
      Irish History for English Readers,
      chapter 23._

   "After the failure of Hoche's expedition, another great
   armament was fitted out in the Texel, where it long lay ready
   to come forth, while the English fleet, the only safeguard of
   our coasts, was crippled by the mutiny at the Nore. But the
   wind once more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet came
   out at last only to be destroyed at Camperdown. Tone was
   personally engaged in both expeditions, and his lively Diary,
   the image of his character, gives us vivid accounts of both.
   The third effort of the French Government was feeble, and
   ended in the futile landing of a small force under Humbert.
   … In the last expedition Tone himself was taken prisoner,
   and, having been condemned to death, committed suicide in
   prison. … It was well for Ireland, as well as for England,
   that Tone failed in his enterprise. Had he succeeded, his
   country would for a time have been treated as Switzerland and
   the Batavian Republic were treated by their French
   regenerators, and, in the end, it would have been surely
   reconquered and punished by the power which was mistress of
   the sea. … But now that all is over, we can afford to say
   that Tone gallantly ventured his life in what naturally
   appeared to him, and would to a high-spirited Englishman under
   the same circumstances have appeared, a good cause. One of his
   race had but too much reason then to 'hate the very name of
   England,' and to look forward to the burning of her cities
   with feelings in which pity struggled with revenge for
   mastery, but revenge prevailed. … From the Republicans the
   disturbance spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind
   disaffection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, and
   religious, which was always smouldering among the Catholic
   peasantry. With these sufferers the political theories of the
   French Revolutionists had no influence; they looked to French
   invasion, as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a
   deliverance from the oppression under which they groaned. …
   The leading Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, were on
   the side of the government. The mass of the Catholic
   priesthood were well inclined to take the same side, They
   could have no sympathy with an Atheist Republic, red with the
   blood of priests, as well as with the blood of a son of St.
   Louis. If some of the order were concerned in the movement, it
   was as demagogues, sympathizing with their peasant brethren,
   not as priests. Yet the Protestants insisted on treating the
   Catholic clergy as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done
   their best to make them so. … No sooner did the Catholic
   peasantry begin to move and organize themselves than the
   Protestant gentry and yeomanry as one man became Cromwellians
   again. Then commenced a Reign of Terror scarcely less savage
   than that of the Jacobins, against whom Europe was in arms, as
   a hideous and portentous brood of evil, the scourge and horror
   of the whole human race. The suspected conspirators were
   intimidated, and confessions, or pretended confessions, were
   extorted by loosing upon the homes of the peasantry the
   license and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel than
   a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, pitch-capping,
   picketing, went on over a large district, and the most
   barbarous scourgings, without trial, were inflicted in the
   Riding-house at Dublin, in the very seat of government and
   justice. This was styled, 'exerting a vigour beyond the law;'
   and to become the object of such vigour, it was enough, as
   under Robespierre, to be suspected of being suspect. No one
   has yet fairly undertaken the revolting but salutary task of
   writing a faithful and impartial history of that period; but
   from the accounts we have, it appears not unlikely that the
   peasantry, though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, and to a
   great extent secretly organized, might have been kept quiet by
   measures of lenity and firmness; and that they were
   gratuitously scourged and tortured into open rebellion. When
   they did rebel, they shewed, as they had shewn in 1641, what
   the galley-slave is when, having long toiled under the lash,
   he contrives in a storm to slip his chains and become master
   of the vessel. The atrocities of Wexford and Vinegar-Hill
   rivalled the atrocities of Portnadown. Nor when the rebellion
   was vanquished did the victors fail to renew the famous feats
   of Sir Charles Coote and of the regiment of Cole. We now
   possess terrible and overwhelming evidence of their sanguinary
   ferocity in the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, who was
   certainly no friend to rebels, having fought against them in
   America, but who was a man of sense and heart, most wisely
   sent over to quench the insurrection, and pacify the country.
   …
{1781}
   The murders and other atrocities committed by the Jacobins
   were more numerous than those committed by the Orangemen, and
   as the victims were of higher rank they excited more
   indignation and pity; but in the use of torture the Orangemen
   seem to have reached a pitch of fiendish cruelty which was
   scarcely attained by the Jacobins. … The Jacobin party was
   almost entirely composed of men taken from the lowest of the
   people, whereas among the Irish terrorists were found men of
   high social position and good education."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      Irish History and Irish Character,
      pages 166-175._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times._

      _Theobald Wolfe Tone,
      Memoirs._

      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

      _A. Griffiths,
      French Revolutionary Generals,
      chapter 16._

      _Viscount Castlereagh,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 1._

      _W. H. Maxwell,
      History of the Irish Rebellion in 1798._

IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
   Formation of the Orange Society.
   Battle of the Diamond.
   Persecution of Catholics by Protestant mobs.

   "The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history, as the year
   of the formation of the Orange Society, and the beginning of
   the most serious disturbances in the county of Armagh. … The
   old popular feud between the lower ranks of Papists and
   Presbyterians in the northern counties is easy to understand,
   and it is not less easy to see how the recent course of Irish
   politics had increased it. A class which had enjoyed and
   gloried in uncontested ascendency, found this ascendency
   passing from its hands. A class which had formerly been in
   subjection, was elated by new privileges, and looked forward
   to a complete abolition of political disabilities. Catholic
   and Protestant tenants came into a new competition, and the
   demeanour of Catholics towards Protestants was sensibly
   changed. There were boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the
   Protestants would speedily be swept away from the land and the
   descendants of the old proprietors restored, and it was soon
   known that Catholics all over the country were forming
   themselves into committees or societies, and were electing
   representatives for a great Catholic convention at Dublin. The
   riots and outrages of the Peep of Day Boys and Defenders had
   embittered the feeling on both sides. … Members of one or
   other creed were attacked and insulted as they went to their
   places of worship. There were fights on the high roads, at
   fairs, wakes, markets, and country sports, and there were
   occasionally crimes of a much deeper dye. … In September
   1795 riots broke out in this county [Armagh], which continued
   for some days, but at length the parish priest on the one
   side, and a gentleman named Atkinson on the other, succeeded
   in so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants formally
   agreed to a truce, and were about to retire to their homes,
   when a new party of Defenders, who had marched from the
   adjoining counties to the assistance of their brethren,
   appeared upon the scene, and on September 21 they attacked the
   Protestants at a place called the Diamond. The Catholics on
   this occasion were certainly the aggressors, and they appear
   to have considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but the
   Protestants were better posted, better armed, and better
   organised. A serious conflict ensued, and the Catholics were
   completely defeated, leaving a large number—probably twenty
   or thirty—dead upon the field. It was on the evening of the
   day on which the battle of the Diamond was fought, that the
   Orange Society was formed. It was at first a league of mutual
   defence, binding its members to maintain the laws and the
   peace of the country, and also the Protestant Constitution. No
   Catholic was to be admitted into the society, and the members
   were bound by oath not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of
   Fitzgibbon, that the King, by assenting to Catholic
   emancipation, would invalidate his title to the throne, was
   remarkably reflected in the oath of the Orangemen, which bound
   them to defend the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they
   support the Protestant ascendency.' The society took its name
   from William of Orange, the conqueror of the Catholics, and it
   agreed to celebrate annually the battle of the Boyne. In this
   respect there was nothing in it particularly novel. Protestant
   associations, for the purpose of commemorating the events and
   maintaining the principles of the Revolution, had long been
   known. … A very different spirit, however, animated the
   early Orangemen. The upper classes at first generally held
   aloof from the society; for a considerable time it appears to
   have been almost confined to the Protestant peasantry of
   Ulster, and the title of Orangemen was probably assumed by
   numbers who had never joined the organisation, who were simply
   Peep of Day Boys taking a new name, and whose conduct was
   certainly not such as those who instituted the society had
   intended. A terrible persecution of the Catholics immediately
   followed. The animosities between the lower orders of the two
   religions, which had long been little bridled, burst out
   afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond, the Protestant
   rabble of the county of Armagh, and of part of the adjoining
   counties, determined by continuous outrages to drive the
   Catholics from the country. Their cabins were placarded, or,
   as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 'To hell or
   Connaught,' and if the occupants did not at once abandon them,
   they were attacked at night by an armed mob. The webs and
   looms of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and destroyed.
   Every article of furniture was shattered or burnt. The houses
   were often set on fire, and the inmates were driven homeless
   into the world. The rioters met with scarcely any resistance
   or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen houses were sometimes
   wrecked in a single night. Several Catholic chapels were
   burnt, and the persecution, which began in the county of
   Armagh, soon extended over a wide area in the counties of
   Tyrone, Down, Antrim, and Derry. … The outrages continued
   with little abatement through a great part of the following
   year. As might have been expected, there were widely differing
   estimates of the number of the victims. According to some
   reports, which were no doubt grossly exaggerated, no less than
   1,400 families, or about 7,000 persons, were driven out of the
   county of Armagh alone. Another, and much more probable
   account, spoke of 700 families, while a certain party among
   the gentry did their utmost to minimise the persecutions."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 27 (volume 7)._

{1782}

IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
   The Legislative Union with Great Britain.

   "No sooner had the rebellion been suppressed than the
   Government proposed, to the Parliament of each country, the
   union of Great Britain and Ireland under a common legislature.
   This was no new idea. It had frequently been in the minds of
   successive generations of statesmen on both sides of the
   Channel; but had not yet been seriously discussed with a view
   to immediate action. Nothing could have been more safely
   predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, follow the
   precedent of Scotland, and yield her pretensions to a separate
   legislation. The measures of 1782, which appeared to establish
   the legislative independence of Ireland, really proved the
   vanity of such a pretension. … On the assembling of the
   British Parliament at the commencement of the year [1799], the
   question of the Union was recommended by a message from the
   Crown; and the address, after some opposition, was carried
   without a division. Pitt, at this, the earliest stage,
   pronounced the decision at which the Government had arrived to
   be positive and irrevocable. … Lord Cornwallis [then Lord
   Lieutenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction that
   union was the only measure which could preserve the country.
   … The day before the intended Union was signified by a royal
   message to the English Parliament, the Irish Houses assembled;
   and the Viceroy's speech, of course, contained a paragraph
   relative to the project. The House of Lords, completely under
   the control of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity
   with the speech, after a short and languid debate, by a large
   majority; but the Commons were violently agitated. … An
   amendment to the address pledging the House to maintain the
   Union was lost by one vote, after the House had sat twenty-one
   hours; but, on the report, the amendment to omit the paragraph
   referring to the Union was carried by a majority of four. …
   When it was understood that the Government was in earnest …
   there was little difficulty in alarming a people among whom
   the machinery of political agitation had, for some years, been
   extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took the lead, and it
   at once became evident that the policy of the Government had
   effected a union among Irishmen far more formidable than that
   which all the efforts of sedition had been able to accomplish.
   The meeting of the bar included not merely men of different
   religious persuasions, but, what was of more importance in
   Ireland, men of different sides in politics. … However
   conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to
   Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the
   Union in any other view than as a measure to deprive his
   country of her independent constitution, and to extinguish her
   national existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took this view.
   … Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
   followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Prime Serjeant, a
   law officer of the Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the
   leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the scheme; so was
   Grattan; so was Curran. Great efforts were made by the
   Government to quiet the Protestants, and to engage the
   Catholics to support the Union. These efforts were so far
   successful that most of the Orange lodges were persuaded to
   refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. The
   Catholic hierarchy were conciliated by the promise of a
   provision for the clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe
   question. Hopes were held out, if promises were not actually
   made, to the Catholic community, that their civil disabilities
   would be removed. … If the Union was to be accomplished by
   constitutional means, it could be effected only by a vote of
   the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of the English
   Parliament; and if the Irish assembly were to pronounce an
   unbiased judgment on the question of its extinction, it is
   certain that a very small minority, possibly not a single
   vote, would be found to support the measure. … The vote on
   the address was followed, in a few days, by an address to the
   Crown, in which the Commons pledged themselves to maintain the
   constitution of 1782. The majority in favour of national
   independence had already increased from five to twenty. …
   The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of the question
   for the current session; but preparations were immediately
   made for its future passage through the Irish Houses. The
   foremost men in Ireland … had first been tempted, but had
   indignantly refused every offer to betray the independence of
   their country. Another class of leading persons was then
   tried, and from these, for the most part, evasive answers were
   received. The minister understood the meaning of these dubious
   utterances. There was one mode of carrying the Union, and one
   mode only. Bribery of every kind must be employed without
   hesitation and without stint."

      _W. Massey,
      History of England: Reign of George. III.,
      chapter 38 (volume 4)._

   "Lord Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating and
   jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or a lift in that
   Peerage, or even an English Peerage, to a crowd of eager
   competitors for honours. The other specific for making
   converts was not yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh
   [the Irish Chief Secretary] had the plan in his
   portfolio:—borough proprietors to be compensated; … fifty
   barristers in parliament, who always considered a seat as the
   road to preferment, to be compensated; the purchasers of seats
   to be compensated; individuals connected either by residence
   or property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord Castlereagh
   considered that £1,500,000 would be required to effect all
   these compensations.' The sum actually paid to the
   borough-mongers alone was £1,260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds
   were allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned amongst
   the various patrons.' … It had become a contest of bribery
   on both sides. There was an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord
   Castlereagh describes the fund against which he was to
   struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. … During the
   administration of Lord Cornwallis, 29 Irish Peerages were
   created; of which seven only were unconnected with the
   question of Union. Six English Peerages were granted on
   account of Irish services; and there were 19 promotions in the
   Irish Peerage, earned by similar assistance." The question of
   Union was virtually decided in the Irish House of Commons on
   the 6th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the previous
   day, had read a message from the Lord Lieutenant,
   communicating resolutions adopted by the parliament of Great
   Britain in the previous year. "The question was debated from
   four o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th to one o'clock in the
   afternoon of the 6th.
{1783}
   During that time the streets of Dublin were the scene of a
   great riot, and the peace of the city was maintained only by
   troops of cavalry. … On the division of the 6th there was a
   majority of 43 in favour of the Union." It was not, however,
   until the 7th of June, that the final legislative
   enactment—the Union Bill—was passed in the Irish House of
   Commons. The first article provided "that the kingdoms of
   Great Britain and Ireland should, upon the 1st of January,
   1801, be united into one kingdom, by the name of The United
   Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom was
   to be represented in one and the same parliament. In the
   United Parliament there were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected
   for life by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers,
   taking their places in rotation. There were to be 100 members
   of the Lower House; each county returning two, as well as the
   cities of Dublin and Cork. The University returned one, and 31
   boroughs each returned one. Of these boroughs 23 remained
   close boroughs till the Reform Bill of 1831. … The Churches
   of England and Ireland were to be united. The proportion of
   Revenue to be levied was fixed at fifteen for Great Britain
   and two for Ireland, for the succeeding twenty years.
   Countervailing duties upon imports to each country were fixed
   by a minute tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to
   be removed."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 7, chapter 21._

   "If the Irish Parliament had consisted mainly, or to any
   appreciable extent, of men who were disloyal to the
   connection, and whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion
   or with the enemies of England, the English Ministers would, I
   think, have been amply justified in employing almost any means
   to abolish it. … But it cannot be too clearly understood or
   too emphatically stated, that the legislative Union was not an
   act of this nature. The Parliament which was abolished was a
   Parliament of the most unqualified loyalists; it had shown
   itself ready to make every sacrifice in its power for the
   maintenance of the Empire, and from the time when Arthur
   O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls,
   it probably did not contain a single man who was really
   disaffected. … It must be added, that it was becoming
   evident that the relation between the two countries
   established by the Constitution of 1782 could not have
   continued unchanged. … Even with the best dispositions, the
   Constitution of 1782 involved many and grave probabilities of
   difference. … Sooner or later the corrupt borough ascendency
   must have broken down, and it was a grave question what was to
   succeed it. … An enormous increase of disloyalty and
   religious animosity had taken place during the last years of
   the century, and it added immensely to the danger of the
   democratic Catholic suffrage, which the Act of 1793 had called
   into existence. This was the strongest argument for hurrying
   on the Union; but when all due weight is assigned to it, it
   does not appear to me to have justified the policy of Pitt."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 32 (volume 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. D. Ingram,
      History of the Legislative Union._

      _R. Hassencamp,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 14._

      _Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      chapters 19-21 (volumes 2-3)._

      _Viscount Castlereagh,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volumes 2-3._

IRELAND: A. D. 1801.
   Pitt's promise of Catholic Emancipation broken by the king.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.
   The Emmet insurrection.

   "Lord Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy in May
   [1801]; and for two years, so far as the British public knew,
   Ireland was undisturbed. The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The
   island was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men.
   Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tipperary, and
   Waterford were faintly audible. Imports and exports increased.
   The debt increased likewise, but, as it was met by loans and
   uncontrolled by any public assembly, no one protested, and few
   were aware of the fact. Landlords and middlemen throve on high
   rents, and peasants as yet could live. … Early in 1803 the
   murmurs in the southwest became louder. Visions of a fixed
   price for potatoes began to shape themselves, and the invasion
   of 'strangers' ready to take land from which tenants had been
   ejected was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy to
   obtain and exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act; but
   the evil was not thought of sufficient magnitude, and their
   request was refused: Amidst the general calm, the insurrection
   of Robert Emmett in July broke like a bolt from the blue. A
   young republican visionary, whose brother had taken an active
   part in the rebellion, he had inspired a few score comrades
   with the quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by
   setting up a factory of pikes in a back street of Dublin. On
   the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, one of his associates,
   who had been sowing vague hopes among the villages of Kildare,
   brought a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening fell, a
   sky-rocket was fired. Emmett and his little band sallied from
   Marshalsea Lane into St. James's Street, and distributed pikes
   to all who would take them. The disorderly mob thus armed
   proceeded to the debtors' prison, which they attacked, killing
   the officer who defended it. Emmett urged them on to the
   Castle. They followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond
   his power to control. On their war they fell in with the
   carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden, dragged him
   out, and killed him. By this time a few handfuls of troops had
   been collected. In half an hour two subalterns, with fifty
   soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gathering. By ten
   o'clock all was over, with the loss of 20 soldiers and 50
   insurgents. Emmett and Russell, another of the leaders who had
   undertaken the agitation of Down and Antrim, were shortly
   afterwards taken and executed; Quigley escaped. Such was the
   last reverberation of the rebellion of 1798, or rather of the
   revolutionary fervour that led the way to that rebellion,
   before it had been tainted with religious animosity. Emmett
   died as Shelley would have died, a martyr and an enthusiast;
   but he knew little of his countrymen's condition, little of
   their aspirations, nothing of their needs. He had no
   successors."

      _J. H. Bridges,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 3, chapter 2._

   "Emmet might easily have escaped to France if he had chosen,
   but he delayed till too late. Emmet was a young man, and Emmet
   was in love. 'The idol of his heart,' as he calls her in his
   dying speech, was Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot
   Curran. … Emmet was determined to see her before he went. He
   placed his life upon the cast and lost it. … The White
   Terror which followed upon the failure of Emmet's rising was
   accompanied by almost all the horrors which marked the hours
   of repression after the rebellion of '98. … The old devil's
   dance of spies and informers went merrily forward; the prisons
   were choked with prisoners."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Ireland Since the Union,
      chapters 5-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Madden,
      The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times,
      volume 3._

      _J. Wills,
      History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen,
      volume 6, pages 68-80._

{1784}

IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
   O'Connell and the agitation for Catholic Emancipation
   and the Repeal of the Union.
   Catholic disabilities removed.

   "There is much reason to believe that almost from the
   commencement of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great Irish
   agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy which he pursued
   through life with little deviation, and, it must be added,
   with little scruple. This scheme was to create and lead a
   public spirit among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emancipation
   by this means from the Government; to perpetuate the agitation
   created for that purpose till the Irish Parliament had been
   restored; to disendow the Established Church; and thus to open
   in Ireland a new era, with a separate and independent
   Parliament and perfect religious equality. It would be
   difficult to conceive a scheme of policy exhibiting more
   daring than this. The Roman Catholics had hitherto shown
   themselves absolutely incompetent to take any decisive part in
   politics. … O'Connell, however, perceived that it was
   possible to bring the whole mass of the people into the
   struggle, and to give them an almost unexampled momentum and
   unanimity by applying to politics a great power that lay
   dormant in Ireland—the power of the Catholic priesthood. To
   make the priests the rulers of the country, and himself the
   ruler of the priests, was his first great object. … There
   was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in '93, who
   recommended what was called 'a dignified silence'—in other
   words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation.
   With this party O'Connell successfully grappled. His advice on
   every occasion was, 'Agitate, agitate, agitate!' and Keogh was
   so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society."
   O'Connell's leadership of the movement for Catholic
   Emancipation became virtually established about the beginning
   of 1811. "He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with
   an 'ulterior object,' and declared that that object was the
   repeal of the Union. 'Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the
   Union,' he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, 'I rejoice to
   see how our enemies promote that great object. … They delay
   the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most
   amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By
   leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they
   will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a
   public spirit.' … Nothing can be more untrue than to
   represent the Repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed
   to sustain his flagging popularity. Nor can it be said that
   the project was first started by him. The deep indignation
   that the Union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among
   all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French
   party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a
   constitutional agitation. … It would be tedious to follow
   into minute detail the difficulties and the mistakes that
   obstructed the Catholic movement, and were finally overcome by
   the energy or the tact of O'Connell. … Several times the
   movement was menaced by Government proclamations and
   prosecutions. Its great difficulty was to bring the public
   opinion of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively and
   habitually into the question. … All preceding movements
   since the Revolution (except the passing excitement about
   Wood's halfpence) had been chiefly among the Protestants or
   among the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of the
   people had taken no real interest in politics, had felt no
   real pain at their disabilities, and were politically the
   willing slaves of their landlords. For the first time, under
   the influence of O'Connell, the great swell of a really
   democratic movement was felt. The simplest way of
   concentrating the new enthusiasm would have been by a system
   of delegates, but this had been rendered illegal by the
   Convention Act. On the other hand, the right of petitioning
   was one of the fundamental privileges of the constitution. By
   availing himself of this right O'Connell contrived, with the
   dexterity of a practised lawyer, to violate continually the
   spirit of the Convention Act, while keeping within the letter
   of the law. Proclamation after proclamation was launched
   against his society, but by continually changing its name and
   its form he generally succeeded in evading the prosecutions of
   the Government. These early societies, however, all sink into
   insignificance compared with that great Catholic Association
   which was formed in 1824. The avowed objects of this society
   were to promote religious education, to ascertain the
   numerical strength of the different religions, and to answer
   the charges against the Roman Catholics embodied in the
   hostile petitions. It also 'recommended' petitions
   (unconnected with the society) from every parish, and
   aggregate meetings in every county. The real object was to
   form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying over the
   entire country, and directed in every parish by the priests,
   for the purpose of petitioning and in every other way
   agitating in favour of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a
   system of small subscriptions—as small as a penny a
   month—collected from the poorest contributors, throughout
   Ireland] was instituted at this time, and it formed at once a
   powerful instrument of cohesion and a faithful barometer of
   the popular feeling. … The success of the Catholic
   Association became every week more striking. The rent rose
   with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 a week in October to
   £700 a week in December, 1824]. The meetings in every county
   grew more and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly
   influence more and more certain. The Government made a feeble
   and abortive effort to arrest the storm by threatening both
   O'Connell and Sheil [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for
   certain passages in their speeches. … The formation of the
   Wellington Ministry [Wellington and Peel, 1828] seemed
   effectually to crush the present hopes of the Catholics, for
   the stubborn resolution of its leader was as well known as his
   Tory opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to terminate the
   contest by establishing the principle of religious equality.
   … On the accession of the Wellington Ministry to power the
   Catholic Association passed a resolution to the effect that
   they would oppose with their whole energy any Irish member who
   consented to accept office under it. …
{1785}
   An opportunity for carrying the resolution into effect soon
   occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for Clare, accepted the
   office of President of the Board of Trade, and was
   consequently obliged to go to his constituents for
   re-election." O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The
   excitement at this announcement rose at once to fever height.
   It extended over every part of Ireland, and penetrated every
   class of society. The whole mass of the Roman Catholics
   prepared to support him, and the vast system of organisation
   which he had framed acted effectually in every direction." For
   the first time, the landlords found that the voting of their
   tenants could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew from the
   contest and O'Connell was elected. "Ireland was now on the
   very verge of revolution. The whole mass of the people had
   been organised like a regular army, and taught to act with the
   most perfect unanimity. … The Ministers, feeling further
   resistance to be hopeless, brought in the Emancipation Bill,
   confessedly because to withhold it would be to kindle a
   rebellion that would extend over the length and breadth of the
   land."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: O'Connell._

   "Peel introduced the Relief Bill on the 5th March [1829]. The
   king had given to it a reluctant assent. At the last hour, the
   intrigues of Eldon and the Duke of Cumberland had so far
   influenced his weak and disingenuous mind that he withdrew his
   assent to his ministers' policy, on the pretence that he had
   not expected, and could not sanction, any modification of the
   Oath of Supremacy. He parted from his ministers with kisses
   and courtesy, and, for a few hours their resignation was in
   his hands. But with night his discretion waxed as his courage
   waned; his ministers were recalled, and their measure
   proceeded. In its main provisions it was thorough and
   far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic to Parliament,
   and to all lay offices under the Crown, except those of
   Regent, Lord Chancellor, whether of England or of Ireland, and
   Lord Lieutenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it
   modified the oath of supremacy. … It approximated the Irish
   to the English county franchise by abolishing the
   forty-shilling freeholder, and raising the voters'
   qualifications to £10. All monasteries and institutions of
   Jesuits were suppressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were
   forbidden to assume titles of sees already held by bishops of
   the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other officials were
   forbidden to wear the insignia of their office at Roman
   Catholic ceremonies. Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was
   available only for persons thereafter to be elected to
   Parliament"—which nullified O'Connell's election at Clare.
   This petty stroke of malice is said to have been introduced in
   the bill for the gratification of the king. The vote in the
   Commons on the Bill was 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217
   to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th of April.

      _J. A. Hamilton,
      Life of Daniel O'Connell,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      Sir Robert Peel,
      chapters 2-7._

      _W. J. Fitzpatrick,
      Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell,
      with notices of his Life and Times,
      volume 1, chapters 1-5._

      _W. J. Amherst,
      History of Catholic Emancipation._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18
      and volume 2, chapters 1-2._

IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Rise of the Ribbon Society.

   "Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 to 1870, a
   secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, known as the 'Ribbon
   Society,' was the constant affliction and recurring terror of
   the landed classes of Ireland. The Vehmgericht itself was not
   more dreaded. … It is assuredly strange—indeed, almost
   incredible—that although the existence of this organisation
   was, in a general way, as well and as widely known as the fact
   that Queen Victoria reigned, or that Daniel O'Connell was once
   a living man; although the story of its crimes has thrilled
   judge and jury, and parliamentary committees have filled
   ponderous blue-books with evidence of its proceedings, there
   is to this hour the widest conflict of assertion and
   conclusion as to what exactly were its real aims, its origin,
   structure, character, and purpose. … I long ago satisfied
   myself that the Ribbonism of one period was not the Ribbonism
   of another; that the version of its aims and character
   prevalent amongst its own members in one county or district
   differed widely from that existing elsewhere. In Ulster it
   professed to be a defensive or retaliatory league against
   Orangeism. In Munster it was at first a combination against
   tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organisation against
   rack-renting and evictions. In Leinster it often was mere
   trade-unionism. … The Ribbon Society seems to have been
   wholly confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, in
   the towns, petty shopkeepers, in whose houses the 'lodges'
   were held. … Although from the inception, or first
   appearance, of Ribbonism the Catholic clergy waged a
   determined war upon it … the society was exclusively
   Catholic. Under no circumstances would a Protestant be
   admitted to membership. … The name 'Ribbon Society' was not
   attached to it until about 1826. It was previously known as
   'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious Liberty System'; the 'United
   Sons of Irish Freedom'; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other
   names. … It has been said, and probably with some truth,
   that it has been too much the habit to attribute erroneously
   to the Ribbon organisation every atrocity committed in the
   country, every deed of blood apparently arising out of
   agrarian combination or conspiracy. … But vain is all
   pretence that the Ribbon Society did not become, whatever the
   original design or intention of its members may have been, a
   hideous organisation of outrage and murder. … There was a
   period when Ribbon outrages had, at all events, a conceivable
   provocation; but there came a time when they sickened the
   public conscience by their wantonness. The vengeance of the
   society was ruthless and terrible. … From 1835 to 1855 the
   Ribbon organisation was at its greatest strength. … With the
   emigration of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, to
   England and to America. At one time the most formidable lodges
   were in Lancashire."

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 4._

IRELAND: A. D. 1831.
   Establishment of National Schools.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—IRELAND.

IRELAND: A. D. 1832.
   Parliamentary Representation increased by the Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

{1786}

IRELAND: A. D. 1840-1841.
   Discontent with the results of the Union.
   Condition of the people.
   O'Connell's revival of agitation for Repeal.

   "The Catholics were at length emancipated in 1829; and now,
   surely, their enemies suggested, they must be contented and
   grateful for evermore? Perverse must the people be who, having
   got what they asked, are not satisfied. Let us see. What they
   asked was to be admitted to their just share, or, at any rate
   to some share, of the government of their native country, from
   which they had been excluded for five generations. But on the
   passing of the Emancipation Act not a single Catholic was
   admitted to an office of authority, great or small. The door
   was opened, indeed, but not a soul was permitted to pass in.
   There were murmurs of discontent, and the class who still
   enjoyed all the patronage of the State, the Church, the army,
   the magistracy, and the public service, demanded if there was
   any use in attempting to conciliate a people so intractable
   and unreasonable? The Catholic Association, which had won the
   victory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being dissolved
   by Act of Parliament. Its leader, who had been elected to the
   House of Commons, had his election declared void by a phrase
   imported into the Emancipation Act for this special purpose.
   The forty-shilling freeholders, whose courage and magnanimity
   had made the cause irresistible, were immediately deprived of
   the franchise. By means of a high qualification and an
   ingeniously complicated system of registry, the electors in
   twelve counties were reduced from upwards of 100,000 to less
   than 10,000. Englishmen cannot comprehend our dissatisfaction.
   … Emancipation was speedily followed by a Reform of the
   House of Commons. In England a sweeping and salutary change
   was made both in the franchise, and in the distribution of
   seats; but Ireland did not obtain either the number of
   representatives she was demonstrably entitled to by population
   and resources, or such a reduction of the franchise as had
   been conceded to England. The Whigs were in power, and Ireland
   was well-disposed to the party. … But the idea of treating
   Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her the full
   advantage of the Union which had been forced on her, did not
   exist in the mind of a single statesman of that epoch. After
   Emancipation and Reform, O'Connell had a fierce quarrel with
   the Whigs, during which he raised the question of Ireland's
   right to be governed exclusively by her own Parliament. The
   people responded passionately to his appeal. The party of
   Protestant Ascendancy had demanded the Repeal of the Union
   before Emancipation, but that disturbing event altered their
   policy, and they withheld all aid from O'Connell. After a
   brief time he abandoned the experiment, to substitute for it
   an attempt to obtain what was called 'justice to Ireland.' In
   furtherance of this project he made a compact with the Whigs
   that the Irish Party under his lead should support them in
   parliament. The Whigs in return made fairer appointments to
   judicial and other public employments, restrained jury
   packing, and established an unsectarian system of public
   education; but the national question was thrown back for more
   than a generation. In 1840-1 O'Connell revived the question of
   Repeal, on the ground that the Union had wholly failed to
   accomplish the end for which it was said to be designed.
   Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, it had brought her
   ruin. The social condition of the country during the
   half-century, then drawing to a close was, indeed, without
   parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on
   agriculture. There were minerals, but none found in what
   miners call 'paying quantities.' There was no manufacture
   except linen, and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying
   out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the
   island chiefly produced was food; which was exported to richer
   countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent.
   Foreign travellers saw with amazement an island possessing all
   the natural conditions of a great commerce, as bare of
   commerce as if it lay in some byeway of the world where
   enterprise had not yet penetrated. … The great proprietors
   were two or three hundred—the heirs of the Undertakers, for
   the most part, and Absentees; the mass of the country was
   owned by a couple of thousand others, who lived in splendour,
   and even profusion; and for these the peasant ploughed, sowed,
   tended, and reaped a harvest which he never shared. Rent, in
   other countries, means the surplus after the farmer has been
   liberally paid for his skill and labour; in Ireland it meant
   the whole produce of the soil except a potato-pit. If a farmer
   strove for more, his master knew how to bring him to speedy
   submission. He could carry away his implements of trade by the
   law of distress, or rob him of his sole pursuit in life by the
   law of eviction. He could, and habitually did, seize the
   growing crop, the stools and pots in his miserable cabin, the
   blanket that sheltered his children, the cow that gave them
   nourishment. There were just and humane landlords, men who
   performed the duties which their position imposed, and did not
   exaggerate its rights; but they were a small minority. …
   Famines were frequent, and every other year destitution killed
   a crowd of peasants. For a hundred and fifty years before,
   whoever has described the condition of Ireland—English
   official, foreign visitor, or Irish patriot—described a
   famine more or less acute. Sometimes the tortured serfs rose
   in nocturnal jacquerie against the system; and then a cry of
   'rebellion' was raised, and England was assured that these
   intractable barbarians were again (as the indictment always
   charged) 'levying war against the King's majesty.' There were
   indeed causes enough for national disaffection, but of these
   the poor peasant knew nothing; he was contending for so much
   miserable food as would save his children from starvation.
   There were sometimes barbarous agrarian murders—murders of
   agents and bailiffs chiefly, but occasionally of landlords. It
   would be shameful to forget that these savage crimes were
   often the result of savage provocation. … The country was
   naked of timber, the cabins of the peasantry were squalid and
   unfurnished. Mr. Carlyle reproves a lazy, thriftless people,
   who would not perform the simple operation of planting trees;
   and Mr. Froude frowns upon cottages whose naked walls are
   never draped by climbing roses or flowering creepers. But how
   much more eloquent is fact than rhetoric? The Irish landlords
   made a law that when the tenant planted a tree it became not
   his own property but his master's; and the established
   practice of four-fifths of the Irish landlords, when a tenant
   exhibited such signs of prosperity as a garden, or a
   white-washed cabin, was to reward his industry by increasing
   his rent.
{1787}
   Peasants will not plant or make improvements on these
   conditions, nor, I fancy, would philosophers. … It was
   sometimes made a boast in those days that rank, property,
   station, and professional success distinguished the minority
   in Ireland who were imperialists and Protestants. It was not
   an amazing phenomenon, that those upon whom the law had
   bestowed a monopoly of rank, property, and station, for a
   hundred and fifty years, should have still maintained the
   advantage a dozen years after Emancipation. It was a subject
   of scornful reproach that the districts inhabited by
   Protestants were peaceful and prosperous, while the Catholic
   districts were often poor and disorderly. There is no doubt of
   the facts; the contrast certainly existed. But the mystery
   disappears when one comes to reflect that in Down and Antrim
   the Squire regarded his tenantry with as much sympathy and
   confidence as a Squire in Devon or Essex, that their sons were
   trained to bear arms, and taught from the pulpit and platform
   that they belonged to a superior race, that all the local
   employments, paid out of the public purse, were distributed
   among them, that they had certain well understood rights over
   their holdings on which no landlord could safely trench, and
   that they met their masters, from time to time, in the
   friendly equality of an Orange lodge; while in Tipperary, the
   farmer was a tenant at will who never saw his landlord except
   when he followed the hounds across his corn, or frowned at him
   from the bench; whose rent could be raised, or his tenancy
   terminated at the pleasure of his master; who, on the smallest
   complaint, was carried before a bench of magistrates, where he
   had no expectation, and little chance, of justice; and who
   wanted the essential stimulus to thrift and industry, the
   secure enjoyment of his earnings. As a set-off to this long
   catalogue of discouragements, there were two facts of happy
   augury. In 1842 half a million of children were receiving
   education in the National Schools under a system designed to
   establish religious equality, and administered by Catholic and
   Protestant Commissioners. And the Teetotal movement was at its
   height. Thousands were accepting every week a pledge of total
   abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest whom the gifts
   of nature and the accidents of fortune combined to qualify for
   the mission of a Reformer. … There was the beginning of
   political reforms also. The Whigs sent a Lord Lieutenant and
   Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for the first time since the
   fall of Limerick, treated the bulk of the nation as the social
   and political equals of the minority. The minority had been so
   long accustomed to make and administer the laws, and to occupy
   the places of authority and distinction, that they regarded
   the change as a revolt; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drummond
   as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. In the interval,
   since Emancipation, a few Catholics were elected to
   Parliament, two Catholic lawyers were raised to the bench, and
   smaller appointments distributed among laymen. … The
   exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, and the
   practice of appointing partisans of too shameful antecedents
   to public functions was interrupted. … It was under these
   circumstances that O'Connell for the second time summoned the
   Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union."

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      A Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,
      pages 242-275._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 4, chapters 1-2._

      _R. M. Martin,
      Ireland before and after the Union._

IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.
   O'Connell's last agitation.
   His trial, imprisonment and release.
   His death.
   The "Young Ireland" Party and its rebellion.

   In 1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, and
   devoted himself there to the work of organization. A
   succession of monster meetings were held all over the country,
   the far-famed one on Tara Hill being, as is credibly asserted,
   attended by no less than a quarter of a million of people.
   Over this vast multitude gathered together around him the
   magic tones of the great orator's voice swept triumphantly;
   awakening anger, grief, passion, delight, laughter, tears, at
   its own pleasure. They were astonishing triumphs, but they
   were dearly bought. The position was, in fact, an impossible
   one to maintain long. O'Connell had carried the whole mass of
   the people with him up to the very brink of the precipice, but
   how to bring them safely and successfully down again was more
   than even he could accomplish. Resistance he had always
   steadily denounced, yet every day his own words seemed to be
   bringing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and nearer.
   The crisis came on October the 5th. A meeting had been
   summoned to meet at Clontarf, near Dublin, and on the
   afternoon of the 4th the Government suddenly came to the
   resolution of issuing a proclamation forbidding it to
   assemble. The risk was a formidable one for responsible men to
   run. Many of the people were already on their way, and only
   O'Connell's own rapid and vigorous measures in sending out in
   all directions to intercept them hindered the actual shedding
   of blood. His prosecution and that of some of his principal
   adherents was the next important event. By a Dublin jury he
   was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and
   conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating the people to
   remain quiet, an order which they strictly obeyed. The jury by
   which he had been condemned was known to be strongly biassed
   against him, and an appeal had been forwarded against his
   sentence to the House of Lords. So strong there, too, was the
   feeling against O'Connell, that little expectation was
   entertained of its being favourably received. Greatly to its
   honour, however, the sentence was reversed and he was set
   free. … The enthusiasm shown at his release was frantic and
   delirious. None the less those months in Richmond prison
   proved the death-knell of his power. He was an old man by this
   time; he was already weakened in health, and that buoyancy
   which had hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle
   never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, the members of
   which had in the first instance been his allies and
   lieutenants, had now formed a distinct section, and upon the
   vital question of resistance were in fierce hostility to all
   his most cherished principles. The state of the country, too,
   preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had begun that
   succession of disastrous seasons which, by destroying the
   feeble barrier which stood between the peasant and a cruel
   death, brought about a national tragedy, the most terrible
   perhaps with which modern Europe has been confronted. This
   tragedy, though he did not live to see the whole of it,
   O'Connell—himself the incarnation of the people—felt
   acutely.
{1788}
   Deep despondency took hold of him. He retired, to a great
   degree, from public life, leaving the conduct of his
   organization in the hands of others. … In 1847 he resolved
   to leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His last public
   appearance was in the House of Commons, where an attentive and
   deeply respectful audience hung upon the faltering and barely
   articulate accents which fell from his lips. In a few deeply
   moving words he appealed for aid and sympathy for his
   suffering countrymen, and left the House. … The camp and
   council chamber of the 'Young Ireland' party was the editor's
   room of 'The Nation' newspaper. There it found its
   inspiration, and there its plans were matured—so far, that
   is, as they can be said to have been ever matured. For an
   eminently readable and all things considered a wonderfully
   impartial account of this movement, the reader cannot do
   better than consult Sir Charles Gavan Duffy's 'Four Years of
   Irish History,' which has the immense advantage of being
   history taken at first hand, written that is by one who
   himself took a prominent part in the scenes which he
   describes. The most interesting figure in the party had,
   however, died before those memorable four years began. Thomas
   Davis, who was only thirty at the time of his death in 1845,
   was a man of large gifts, nay, might fairly be called a man of
   genius. … The whole movement in fact was, in the first
   instance; a literary quite as much as a political one. Nearly
   all who took part in it Gavan Duffy, John Mitchell, Meagher,
   Dillon, Davis himself—were very young men, many fresh from
   college, all filled with zeal for the cause of liberty and
   nationality. The graver side of the movement only showed
   itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. At first no
   idea of deposing, or even seriously opposing the great leader
   seems to have been intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part
   to carry a formal declaration against the employment under any
   circumstances of physical force was, the origin of that
   division, and what the younger spirits considered 'truckling
   to the Whigs' helped to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell
   had partially retired into the background, his place was
   filled by his son, John O'Connell, the 'Head conciliator,'
   between whom and the 'Young Irelanders' there waged a fierce
   war, which in the end led to the indignant withdrawal of the
   latter from the Repeal council. Before matters reached this
   point, the younger camp had been strengthened by the adhesion
   of Smith O'Brien, who, though not a man of much intellectual
   calibre, carried no little weight in Ireland. … Early in
   January, 1847, O'Connell left on that journey of his which was
   never completed, and by the middle of May Ireland was suddenly
   startled by the news that her great leader was dead. The
   effect of his death was to produce a sudden and immense
   reaction. A vast revulsion of love and reverence sprang up all
   over the country; an immense sense of his incomparable
   services, and with it a vehement anger against all who had
   opposed him. Upon the 'Young Ireland' party, as was
   inevitable, the weight of that anger fell chiefly, and from
   the moment of O'Connell's death whatever claim they had to
   call themselves a national party vanished utterly. The men
   'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope to carry
   with them the suffrages of any number of their countrymen.
   This contumely, to a great degree undeserved, naturally
   reacted upon the subjects of it. The taunt of treachery and
   ingratitude flung at them wherever they went stung and
   nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude and affection
   for O'Connell, his son John succeeded easily to the position
   of leader. The older members of the Repeal Association
   thereupon rallied about him, and the split between them and
   the younger men grew deeper and wider. A wild, impracticable
   visionary now came to play a part in the movement. A deformed
   misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with a considerable
   command of vague, passionate rhetoric, began to write
   incentives to revolt in 'The Nation.' These growing more and
   more violent were by the editor at length prudently
   suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown itself in
   another mind. John Mitchell is described by Mr. Justin
   McCarthy as 'the one formidable man amongst the rebels of '48;
   the one man who distinctly knew what he wanted, and was
   prepared to run any risk to get it.' … To him it was
   intolerable that any human being should be willing to go
   further and to dare more in the cause of Ireland than himself,
   and the result was that after awhile he broke away from his
   connection with The Nation,' and started a new organ under
   the name of 'The United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from
   the first to the policy of action. From this point matters
   gathered speedily to a head. Mitchell's newspaper proceeded to
   fling out challenge after challenge to the Government, calling
   upon the people to gather and to 'sweep-this island clear of
   the English name and nation.' For some months these challenges
   remained unanswered. It was now, however, '48,' and nearly all
   Europe was in revolution. The necessity of taking some step
   began to be evident, and a Bill making all written incitement
   of insurrection felony was hurried through the House of
   Commons, and almost immediately after Mitchell was arrested.
   Even then he seems to have believed that the country would
   rise to liberate him. The country, however, showed no
   disposition to do anything of the sort. He was tried in
   Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to fourteen years'
   transportation, and a few days afterwards put on board a
   vessel in the harbour and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he
   was sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a convict
   vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tasmania. The other 'Young
   Irelanders,' stung apparently by their own previous inaction,
   thereupon rushed frantically into rebellion. The
   leaders—Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others—went
   about the country holding reviews of 'Confederates,' as they
   now called themselves, a proceeding which caused the
   Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a
   warrant for their arrest. A few more gatherings took place in
   different parts of the country, a few more ineffectual
   attempts were made to induce the people to rise, one very
   small collision with the police occurred, and then the whole
   thing was over. All the leaders in the course of a few days
   were arrested and Smith O'Brien and Meagher were sentenced to
   death, a sentence which was speedily changed into
   transportation. Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times
   tried, but the jury always disagreed, and in the end his
   prosecution was abandoned. The 'Young Ireland' movement,
   however, was dead, and never again revived."

      _E. Lawless,
      The Story of Ireland,
      chapters 55-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Young Ireland._

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Four Years of Irish History, 1845-1849._

      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      Thomas Davis: Memoirs of an Irish Patriot, 1840-1846._

{1789}

IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.
   The Devon Commission.
   The Encumbered Estates Act.

   In 1843, Mr. Sharman Crawford "succeeded in obtaining the
   appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the
   'occupation of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known from
   its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon Commission, marks a
   great epoch in the Irish land question. The Commissioners, in
   their Report, brought out strongly the facts that great misery
   existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the misery was the
   system of land tenure. The following extract from the Report
   indicates the general nature of its conclusions: 'A reference
   to the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that the
   agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer the
   greatest privations and hardships; that he continues to depend
   upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence; that he
   is badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for
   his labour. Our personal experience and observations during
   our enquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of
   these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing our strong
   sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes
   have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe,
   than the people of any other country in Europe have to
   sustain.' And the remedy for the evil is to be found,
   continues the Report, in 'an increased and improved
   cultivation of the soil,' to be gained by securing for the
   tenant' fair remuneration for the outlay of his capital and
   labour.' No sooner was this Report issued than great numbers
   of petitions were presented to the House of Lords, and
   supported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative reform of the
   land evils; and in June, 1845, a bill was introduced into the
   House of Lords by Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of
   Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing compensation to
   tenants in Ireland, in certain cases, on being dispossessed of
   their holdings, for such improvements as they may have made
   during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition of the Irish
   landlords this bill was thrown out. Two days after its
   rejection in the House of Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought
   into the House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and met with as
   little success. In 1846 a government bill was introduced,
   bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord Stanley; but the
   ministry was overthrown, and the bill was dropped. A Liberal
   ministry under Lord John Russell came into power in July,
   1846, and Irish hopes again began to rise. In 1847 the
   indefatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose purpose
   was to extend the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland; it
   was thrown out. A well-meant but in the end unsuccessful
   attempt to relieve the burdens of embarrassed landlords
   without redressing the grievances of rack-rented tenants, was
   made in 1848 by the measure well known as the Encumbered
   Estates Act. This Act had for its object to restore capital to
   the land; but with capital it brought in a class of
   proprietors who lacked the virtues as well as the vices of
   their predecessors, and were even more oppressive to the
   tenantry."

      _E. Thursfield,
      England and Ireland,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. L. Jephson,
      Notes on Irish Questions,
      chapter 15._

      _D. B. King,
      The Irish Question,
      chapter 9._

IRELAND: A. D. 1844.
   The Maynooth Grant.

   Towards the close of the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir
   Robert Peel undertook a measure "dealing with higher education
   in Ireland. Means were to be found, in some way, for the
   education of the upper classes of the Irish, and for the more
   efficient education of candidates for the Roman Catholic
   priesthood. Some provision already existed for the education
   of the Irish people. Trinity College, with its considerable
   endowments, afforded opportunities to wealthy Irish. The
   National Board, which Stanley had instituted, had under its
   control 3,153 schools, and 395,000 scholars. But Trinity
   College retained most of its advantages for the benefit of its
   Protestant students, and the 395,000 scholars, whom the
   National Board was educating, did not, after all, include one
   person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The Roman Catholic,
   since 1793, had been allowed to graduate at Trinity; but he
   could hold neither scholarship nor professorship. … Some
   steps had, indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman
   Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had proposed, and
   his successor, Camden, had approved, the appropriation of an
   annual sum of money to a college formed at Maynooth for the
   education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish parliament had
   readily sanctioned the scheme; the payment of the grant had
   been continued, after the Union, by the Parliament of the
   United Kingdom, and, though the sums voted had been reduced to
   £9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had been thenceforward
   regularly allotted to Maynooth. In some respects the grant was
   actually disadvantageous to the college; it was too small to
   maintain the institution; it was large enough to discourage
   voluntary contributions. The surroundings of the college were
   squalid; its professors were wretchedly paid; it was even
   impossible to assign to each of the 440 students a separate
   room; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a memorable speech, a
   'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' and it was Peel's deliberate
   opinion that the absolute withdrawal of the grant would be
   better than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." The
   Government "asked Parliament to vote a sum of £30,000 to
   improve the buildings at Maynooth; it proposed that the Board
   of Works should in future be responsible for keeping them in
   repair; it suggested that the salaries of professors should be
   more than doubled; that the position of the students should be
   improved; that the annual grant should be raised from about
   £9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, instead of being
   subject to the approval of the legislature once a year, should
   be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of
   debates which have no parallel in the history of the British
   Parliament. … 'The Orangeman raises his howl,' said
   Macaulay, 'and Exeter Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. MacNeile
   is horrified to think that a still larger grant is intended
   for the priests of Baal at the table of Jezebel, and the
   Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of
   Ministers in exceedingly bad English.'
{1790}
   A few years later a man, who was both a Christian and a
   gentleman, declared the Irish famine to be a dispensation of
   Providence in return for the Maynooth grant. … Night after
   night it rained petitions; 298 petitions against the bill were
   presented on the 3rd of April, when Peel explained his scheme;
   148 on the 8th; 254 on the 9th; 552 on the 10th; 2,262 on the
   11th, when the bill was put down for a second reading; 662 on
   the 14th; 581 on the 15th; 420 on the 16th; 335 on the 17th;
   371 on the 18th. The petitions hardly allowed a doubt to
   remain as to the opinion of the country. Peel, indeed, was
   again exposed to the full force of the strongest power which
   any British Minister can encounter. The Mussulman, driven to
   his last defence, raises the standard of the Prophet, and
   proclaims a holy war. But the Englishman, if Protestantism be
   in danger, shouts, 'No Popery!' and creates equal enthusiasm.
   … Yet, vast as was the storm which the Minister had
   provoked, the issues which he had directly raised were of the
   smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to propose that
   the original vote to Maynooth should be withdrawn. A grant,
   indeed, which had been sanctioned by George III., which had
   been fixed by Perceval, which had been voted in an unreformed
   Parliament, almost without debate, and which had been
   continued for fifty years, could not be withdrawn. Peel's
   opponents, therefore, were compelled to argue that there was
   no harm in sacrificing £9,000 a year to Baal, but that a
   sacrifice of £26,000 was full of harm. … They debated the
   second reading of the bill for six nights, the third reading
   for three nights, and they seized other opportunities for
   protracting the discussion. Even the Lords forgot their
   customary habits and sat up till a late hour on three
   successive evenings to discuss an amendment for inquiring into
   the class of books used at Maynooth. But this unusual display
   of zeal proved useless. A majority in both Houses steadily
   supported the Minister, and zealous Protestants and
   old-fashioned Tories were unable to defeat a scheme which was
   proposed by Peel and supported by Russell."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 19 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN;
      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 6, chapter 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.
   The Famine.

   "In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 souls. By
   1845 it had probably reached to nearly nine millions. … To
   anyone looking beneath the surface the condition of the
   country was painfully precarious. Nine millions of a
   population living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful
   hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on the hazards of
   one crop, destitute of manufacturing industries, and utterly
   without reserve or resource to fall back upon in time of
   reverse; what did all this mean but a state of things critical
   and alarming in the extreme? Yet no one seemed conscious of
   danger. The potato crop had been abundant for four or five
   years, and respite from dearth and distress was comparative
   happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the temperance movement
   [of Father Mathew] had come to make the 'good times' still
   better. Everything looked bright. No one concerned himself to
   discover how slender and treacherous was the foundation for
   this general hopefulness and confidence. Yet signs of the
   coming storm had been given. Partial famine caused by failing
   harvests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland, and, quite
   recently, warnings that ought not to have been mistaken or
   neglected had given notice that the esculent which formed the
   sole dependence of the peasant millions was subject to some
   mysterious blight. In 1844 it was stricken in America, but in
   Ireland the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. The
   harvest of 1845 promised to be the richest gathered for many
   years. Suddenly, in one short month, in one week it might be
   said, the withering breath of a simoom seemed to sweep the
   land, blasting all in its path. I myself saw whole tracts of
   potato growth changed in one night from smiling luxuriance to
   a shrivelled and blackened waste. A shout of alarm arose. But
   the buoyant nature of the Celtic peasant did not yet give way.
   The crop was so profuse that it was expected the healthy
   portion would reach an average result. Winter revealed the
   alarming fact that the tubers had rotted in pit and
   store-house. Nevertheless the farmers, like hapless men who
   double their stakes to recover losses, made only the more
   strenuous exertions to till a larger breadth in 1846. Although
   already feeling the pinch of sore distress, if not actual
   famine, they worked as if for dear life; they begged and
   borrowed on any terms the means whereby to crop the land once
   more. The pawn-offices were choked with the humble finery that
   had shone at the village dance or the christening feast; the
   banks and local money-lenders were besieged with appeals for
   credit. Meals were stinted, backs were bared. Anything,
   anything to tide over the interval to the harvest of
   'Forty-six.' O God, it is a dreadful thought that all this
   effort was but more surely leading them to ruin! It was this
   harvest of Forty-six that sealed their doom. Not partially but
   completely, utterly, hopelessly, it perished. As in the
   previous year, all promised brightly up to the close of July.
   Then, suddenly, in a night, whole areas were blighted; and
   this time, alas! no portion of the crop escaped. A cry of
   agony and despair went up all over the land. The last
   desperate stake for life had been played, and all was lost.
   The doomed people realised but too well what was before them.
   Last year's premonitory sufferings had exhausted them, and
   now?—they must die! My native district figures largely in the
   gloomy record of that dreadful time. I saw the horrible
   phantasmagoria—would God it were but that!—pass before my
   eyes. Blank stolid dismay, a sort of stupor, fell upon the
   people, contrasting remarkably with the fierce energy put
   forth a year before. It was no uncommon sight to see the
   cottier and his little family seated on the garden fence
   gazing all day long in moody silence at the blighted plot that
   had been their last hope. Nothing could arouse them. You
   spoke; they answered not. You tried to cheer them; they shook
   their heads. I never saw so sudden and so terrible a
   transformation. When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial
   blight appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to the
   Government that a frightful catastrophe was at hand; yet even
   then began that fatal circumlocution and inaptness which it
   maddens one to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny
   that the Government made exertions which judged by ordinary
   emergencies would be prompt and considerable.
{1791}
   But judged by the awful magnitude of the evil then at hand or
   actually befallen, they were fatally tardy and inadequate.
   When at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of
   precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive deliberation.
   … In October 1845 the Irish Mansion House Relief Committee
   implored the Government to call Parliament together and throw
   open the ports. The Government refused. Again and again the
   terrible urgency of the case, the magnitude of the disaster at
   hand, was pressed on the executive. It was the obstinate
   refusal of Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances
   and entreaties, and the sad verification subsequently of these
   apprehensions, that implanted in the Irish mind the bitter
   memories which still occasionally find vent in passionate
   accusation of 'England.' Not but the Government had many and
   weighty arguments in behalf of the course they took. … The
   situation bristled with difficulties. … At first the
   establishment of public soup-kitchens under local relief
   committees, subsidised by Government, was relied upon to
   arrest the famine. I doubt if the world ever saw so huge a
   demoralisation, so great a degradation, visited upon a once
   high-spirited and sensitive people. All over the country large
   iron boilers were set up, in which what was called 'soup' was
   concocted; later on Indian-meal stirabout was boiled. Around
   these boilers on the roadside there daily moaned and shrieked
   and fought and scuffled crowds of gaunt, cadaverous creatures
   that once had been men and women made in the image of God. The
   feeding of dogs in a kennel was far more decent and orderly.
   … I frequently stood and watched the scene till tears
   blinded me and I almost choked with grief and passion. … The
   conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period
   has been variously described, and has been, I believe,
   generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them
   too sweeping. … On many of them no blame too heavy could
   possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their
   ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty
   at home—cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and
   faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown
   callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of
   brutal heartlessness here and there. But … the overwhelming
   balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish
   landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. … In
   the autumn of 1846 relief works were set on foot, the
   Government having received parliamentary authority to grant
   baronial loans for such undertakings. There might have been
   found many ways of applying these funds in reproductive
   employment, but the modes decided on were draining and
   road-making. … The result was in every sense deplorable
   failure. The wretched people were by this time too wasted and
   emaciated to work. The endeavour to do so under an inclement
   winter sky only hastened death. They tottered at day-break to
   the roll-call; vainly tried to wheel the barrow or ply the
   pick, but fainted away on the 'cutting,' or lay down on the
   wayside to rise no more. As for the roads on which so much
   money was wasted, and on which so many lives were sacrificed,
   hardly any of them were finished. Miles of grass-grown earth
   works throughout the country now mark their course and
   commemorate for posterity one of the gigantic blunders of the
   famine time. The first remarkable sign of the havoc which
   death was making was the decline, and disappearance of
   funerals. … Soon, alas! neither coffin nor shroud could be
   supplied. Daily in the street and on the footway some poor
   creature lay down as if to sleep, and presently was stiff and
   stark. In our district it was a common occurrence to find, on
   opening the front door in early morning, leaning against it,
   the corpse of some victim who in the night-time had 'rested'
   in its shelter. We raised a public subscription, and employed
   two men with horse and cart to go around each day and gather
   up the dead. One by one they were taken to a great pit at
   Ardnabrahair Abbey and dropped through the hinged bottom of a
   'trap-coffin' into a common grave below. In the remoter rural
   districts even this rude sepulture was impossible. In the
   field and by the ditchside the victims lay as they fell, till
   some charitable hand was found to cover them with the adjacent
   soil. It was the fever which supervened on the famine that
   wrought the greatest slaughter and spread the greatest terror.
   … To come within the reach of this contagion was certain
   death. Whole families perished unvisited and unassisted. By
   levelling above their corpses the sheeling in which they died,
   the neighbours gave them a grave."

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 6._

   "In July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were
   actually receiving separate rations. A loan of £8,000,000 was
   contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants,
   and every step was taken by two successive administrations,
   Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the
   sufferings of the people. Nor was private benevolence lacking.
   The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and
   love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was
   formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Lloyd (Lord
   Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's
   letter was issued. … Subscriptions were received from almost
   every quarter of the world. The Queen's letter alone produced
   £171,533. The British Association collected £263,000; the
   Society of Friends £43,000; and £168,000 more were entrusted
   to the Dublin Society of Friends. The Sultan of Turkey sent
   £1,000. The Queen gave £2,000, and £500 more to the British
   Ladies' Clothing Fund. Prince Albert gave £500. The National
   Club collected £17,930. America sent two ships of war, the
   'Jamestown' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and the
   Irish residents in the United States sent upwards of £200,000
   to their relatives, to allow them to emigrate."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      part 4, chapter 4._

   "By the end of 1847 cheap supplies of food began to be brought
   into the country by the ordinary operation of the laws of
   supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing to an abundant
   harvest abroad, than if the Government had tried to constitute
   itself the sole distributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if
   not bountiful, was at least comparatively good. … By March,
   1848, the third and last period of the famine may be said to
   have terminated. But, though the direct period of distress was
   over, the economic problems which remained for solution were
   of overwhelming magnitude. … A million and a half of the
   people had disappeared. The land was devastated with fever and
   the diseases which dog the steps of famine. … The waters of the
   great deep were indeed going down, but the land was seen to be
   without form and void."

      _Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 4, chapter 4._

{1792}

   "The famine and plague of 1846-47 was accompanied, and
   succeeded, by a wholesale clearance of congested districts and
   by cruel evictions. The new landlords [who had acquired
   property under the Encumbered Estates Act], bent on
   consolidating their property, turned out their tenants by
   regiments, and in the autumn of 1847 enormous numbers were
   deported. It is absolutely necessary to bear this strictly in
   mind, if we would judge of the intense hatred which prevails
   amongst the Irish in America to Great Britain. The children of
   many of those who were exiled then have raised themselves to
   positions of affluence and prosperity in the United States.
   But they have often heard from their fathers, and some of them
   may perhaps recall, the circumstances under which they were
   driven from their old homes in Ireland. … But there is a
   further and awful memory connected with that time. The people
   who had been suffering from fever carried the plague with them
   on board, and the vessels sometimes became floating
   charnel-houses. During the year 1847, out of 106,000 emigrants
   who crossed the Atlantic for Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100
   perished on the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200
   subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the towns to which
   they repaired. … Undoubtedly, historical circumstances have
   … had much to do with the political hatred to Great Britain;
   but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the still fresh
   remembrances of what took place after the famine, and to the
   fact that the wholesale clearances of Irish estates were, to
   say the least, not discouraged in the writings and speeches of
   English lawgivers, economists and statesmen."

      _Sir R. Blennerhassett,
      Ireland ("Reign of Queen Victoria,"
      edited by T. H. Ward,
      volume 1, pages 563-565)._

   "The deaths from fever in the year 1846 were 17,145, in the
   following year 57,000, to which 27,000 by dysentery must be
   added."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, page 164._

   "Between the years 1847 and 1851 (both inclusive) the almost
   incredible number of over one million Irish—men, women, and
   children—were conveyed in emigrant ships to America—a
   whole population. In 1847, 215,444 emigrated; in 1849,
   218,842, and in 1851, 249,721."

      _H. L. Jephson,
      Notes on Irish Questions,
      page 298._

   "The population of Ireland by March 30, 1851, at the same
   ratio of increase as held in England and Wales, would have
   been 9,018,799—it was 6,552,385. It was the calculation of
   the Census Commissioners that the deficit, independently of
   the emigration, represented by the mortality in the five
   famine years, was 985,366."

      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      page 125._

IRELAND: A. D. 1846.
   Defeat of Peel's Coercion Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.

IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.
   Tenant organizations.
   The Ulster Tenant Right.
   The Tenant League.

   "The famine … and the evictions that followed it made the
   people more discontented than ever with the land system. The
   Democratic Association, organized about this time, adopted as
   its rallying cry, 'the land for the people.' … This
   association, whose aims are said to have been 'largely
   communistic and revolutionary,' opposed the Irish Alliance,
   the Nationalist Society organized by Charles Gavan Duffy. …
   During the years '49 and '50 numerous Tenant Protection
   Societies were formed throughout the country, the
   Presbyterians of Ulster taking quite as active a part as the
   Celtic Catholics of the other provinces. In May, 1850, the
   Presbyterian Synod of Ulster … resolved, against the
   protest, it is true, of the more conservative men, to petition
   Parliament to extend to the rest of Ireland the benefits of
   rights and securities similar to those of the Ulster custom.
   … The Ulster tenant right … has occupied an important
   place in the Irish land question for a long time. … The
   right differs much on different estates. On no two does it
   seem to be precisely the same. It is therefore not a right
   capable of being strictly defined. Nor did it have any legal
   sanction until the year 1870. The law did not recognize it.
   One of its chief incidents was that the tenant was entitled to
   live on his farm from year to year indefinitely on condition
   of acting properly, and paying his rent, which the landlord
   might raise from time to time to a reasonable extent, but not
   so as to extinguish the tenant's interest. In the second
   place, if the tenant got in debt, and could not pay the rent,
   or wished for any other reason to leave the holding, he could
   sell his interest, but the landlord had a right to be
   consulted, and could object to the purchaser. In the third
   place, the landlord, if he wanted to take the land for his own
   purposes, must pay the tenant a fair sum for his tenant-right.
   In the fourth place, all arrears of rent must be paid before
   the interest was transferred. These are said to be universal
   characteristics of every Ulster tenant-right custom. There
   were often additional restrictions or provisions, usually in
   limitation of the tenant's right to sell, or of the landlord's
   right to raise the rent, veto the sale of land, or take it for
   his own use. There were commonly established usages in
   reference to fixing a fair rent. Valuators were generally
   employed, and on their estimates, and not on competition in
   open market, the rent was fixed. … The Irish Tenant League
   was organized August 6, 1850, in Dublin. Among the resolutions
   adopted was one, calling for 'a fair valuation of rent between
   landlord and tenant in Ireland,' and another, 'that the tenant
   should not be disturbed in his holding as long as he paid his
   rent.' The question of arrears received a great deal of
   attention. The great majority of the tenants of Ireland were
   in arrears, owing to the successive failures of the crops, and
   were of course liable to eviction. … The Tenant League was a
   very popular one and spread throughout the country. There was
   much agitation, and in the general election in 1852, when the
   excitement was at its height, fifty-eight Tenant Leaguers were
   elected to Parliament. The Tenant League members resolved to
   hold themselves 'independent of and in opposition to all
   governments which do not make it a part of their policy' to
   give the tenants a measure of relief such as the League
   desired. It looked as though the party would hold the balance
   of power and be able to secure its objects. When however
   Sadlier and Keogh, two of the most prominent men in the party
   and men of great influence, accepted positions in the new
   government, 'bribed by office,' it has always been charged by
   the Irish, 'to betray the cause to which they had been most
   solemnly pledged,' the party was broken up without
   accomplishing its purpose."

      _D. B. King,
      The Irish Question,
      chapters 5 and 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. G. Duffy,
      League of the North and South._

      _A. M. Sullivan,
      New Ireland,
      chapter 13._

      _J. Godkin,
      The Land War in Ireland,
      chapter 17._

{1793}

IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.
   The Fenian Movement.

   "The Fenian movement differed from nearly all previous
   movements of the same kind in Ireland, in the fact that it
   arose and grew into strength without the patronage or the help
   of any of those who might be called the natural leaders of the
   people. … Its leaders were not men of high position, or
   distinguished name, or proved ability. They were not of
   aristocratic birth; they were not orators; they were not
   powerful writers. It was not the impulse of the American Civil
   War that engendered Fenianism; although that war had great
   influence on the manner in which Fenianism shaped its course.
   Fenianism had been in existence, in fact, although it had not
   got its peculiar name, long before the American War created a
   new race of Irishmen—the Irish-American soldiers—to turn
   their energies and their military inclination to a new
   purpose. … The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in
   consequence of the 1848 movement, led, as a matter of course,
   to secret association. Before the trials of the Irish leaders
   were well over in that year, a secret association was formed
   by a large number of young Irishmen in cities and towns. …
   After two or three attempts to arrange for a simultaneous
   rising had failed, or had ended only in little abortive and
   isolated ebullitions, the young men became discouraged. Some
   of the leaders went to France, some to the United States, some
   actually to England; and the association melted away. … Some
   years after this, the 'Phœnix' clubs began to be formed in
   Ireland. They were for the most part associations of the
   peasant class, and were on that account, perhaps, the more
   formidable and earnest. … The Phœnix clubs led to some of
   the ordinary prosecutions and convictions; and that was all.
   … After the Phœnix associations came the Fenians. 'This is a
   serious business now,' said a clever English literary man when
   he heard of the Fenian organisation; 'the Irish have got hold
   of a good name this time; the Fenians will last.' The Fenians
   are said to have been the ancient Irish militia. … There was
   an air of Celtic antiquity and of mystery about the name of
   Fenian which merited the artistic approval given to it by the
   impartial English writer whose observation has just been
   quoted. The Fenian agitation began about 1858, and it came to
   perfection about the middle of the American Civil War. It was
   ingeniously arranged on a system by which all authority
   converged towards one centre [called the Head-Centre], and
   those farthest away from the seat of direction knew
   proportionately less and less about the nature of the plans.
   They had to obey instructions only, and it was hoped that by
   this means weak or doubtful men would not have it in their
   power prematurely to reveal, to betray, or to thwart the
   purposes of their leaders. A convention was held in America,
   and the Fenian Association was resolved into a regular
   organised institution. A provisional government was
   established in the neighbourhood of Union Square, New York,
   with all the array and the mechanism of an actual working
   administration. … The Civil War had introduced a new figure
   to the world's stage. This was the Irish-American soldier. …
   Many of these men—thousands of them—were as sincerely
   patriotic in their way as they were simple and brave. It is
   needless to say that they were fastened on in some instances
   by adventurers, who fomented the Fenian movement out of the
   merest and the meanest self-seeking. … Some were making a
   living out of the organisation—out of that, and apparently
   nothing else. The contributions given by poor Irish
   hack-drivers and servant girls, in the sincere belief that
   they were helping to man the ranks of an Irish army of
   independence, enabled some of these self-appointed leaders to
   wear fine clothes and to order expensive dinners. … But in
   the main it is only fair to say that the Fenian movement in
   the United States was got up, organised and manned by persons
   who … were single-hearted, unselfish, and faithfully devoted
   to their cause. … After a while things went so far that the
   Fenian leaders in the United States issued an address,
   announcing that their officers were going to Ireland to raise
   an army there for the recovery of the country's independence.
   Of course the Government here were soon quite prepared to
   receive them; and indeed the authorities easily managed to
   keep themselves informed by means of spies of all that was
   going on in Ireland. … Meanwhile the Head Centre of
   Fenianism in America, James Stephens, who had borne a part in
   the movement of 1848, arrived in Ireland. He was arrested …
   [and] committed to Richmond Prison, Dublin, early in November,
   1865; but before many days had passed the country was startled
   by the news that he had contrived to make his escape. The
   escape was planned with skill and daring. For a time it helped
   to strengthen the impression on the mind of the Irish
   peasantry that in Stephens there had at last been found an
   insurgent leader of adequate courage, craft, and good fortune.
   Stephens disappeared for a moment from the stage. In the
   meantime disputes and dissensions had arisen among the Fenians
   in America. The schism had gone so far as to lead to the
   setting up of two separate associations. There were of course
   distracted plans. One party was for an invasion of Canada;
   another pressed for operations in Ireland itself. The Canadian
   attempt actually was made. …

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

   Then Stephens came to the front again. It was only for a
   moment. He had returned to New York, and he now announced that
   he was determined to strike a blow in Ireland. Before long the
   impression was spread abroad that he had actually left the
   States to return to the scene of his proposed insurrection.
   The American-Irish kept streaming across the Atlantic, even in
   the stormy winter months, in the firm belief that before the
   winter had passed away, or at the farthest while the spring
   was yet young, Stephens would appear in Ireland at the head of
   an insurgent army. … Stephens did not reappear in Ireland.
   He made no attempt to keep his warlike promise. He may be said
   to have disappeared from the history of Fenianism. But the
   preparations had gone too far to be suddenly stopped. … It
   was hastily decided that something should be done. One venture
   was a scheme for the capture of Chester Castle [and the arms
   it contained]. … The Government were fully informed of the
   plot in advance; the police were actually on the look-out for
   the arrival of strangers in Chester, and the enterprise melted
   away.
{1794}
   In March, 1867, an attempt at a general rising was made in
   Ireland. It was a total failure; the one thing on which the
   country had to be congratulated was that it failed so
   completely and so quickly as to cause little bloodshed. Every
   influence combined to minimise the waste of life. The snow
   fell that spring as it had scarcely ever fallen before in the
   soft, mild climate of Ireland. … It made the gorges of the
   mountains untenable, and the gorges of the mountains were to
   be the encampments and the retreats of the Fenian insurgents.
   The snow fell for many days and nights, and when it ceased
   falling the insurrectionary movement was over. The
   insurrection was literally buried in that unlooked-for snow.
   There were some attacks on police barracks in various places
   —in Cork, in Kerry, in Limerick, in Tipperary, in Louth;
   there were some conflicts with the police; there were some
   shots fired, many captures made, a few lives lost; and then
   for the time at least all was over. The Fenian attempt thus
   made had not from the beginning a shadow of hope to excuse
   it." Some months afterwards a daring rescue of Fenian
   prisoners at Manchester stirred up a fresh excitement in
   Fenian circles. A policeman was killed in the affair, and
   three of the rescuers were hanged for his murder. On the 13th
   of December, 1867, an attempt was made to blow up the
   Clerkenwell House of Detention, where two Fenian prisoners
   were confined. "Six persons were killed on the spot; about six
   more died from the effects of the injuries they received; some
   120 persons were wounded. … It is not necessary to follow
   out the steps of the Fenian movement any further. There were
   many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, trials,
   imprisonments, banishments. The effect of all this, it must be
   stated as a mere historical fact, was only to increase the
   intensity of dissatisfaction and discontent among the Irish
   peasantry. … There were some public men who saw that the
   time had come when mere repression must no longer be relied
   upon as a cure for Irish discontent."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 53 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      chapters 7._

      _G. P. Macdonell,
      Fenianism,
      Two Centuries of Irish History,
      part 5, chapter 4._

IRELAND: A. D. 1868.
   Parliamentary Reform.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

IRELAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
   Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The land question and the recent land laws.

   "The reason for exceptional legislation in Ireland rested
   chiefly on the essential difference between the landlord and
   tenant systems in England and in Ireland. In 1845 the Devon
   Royal Commission reported that the introduction of the English
   system would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The
   difference, it said, between the English and Irish systems
   'consisted in this, that in Ireland the landlord builds
   neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences,
   gates, etc., into good order before he lets his land. In most
   cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is
   done by the tenant; and, in the ordinary language of the
   country, houses, farm buildings, and even the making of fences
   are described by the general word "improvements," which is
   thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm
   without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found
   to rent it.' Thirty years later, John Bright summarized the
   matter by saying that if the land of Ireland were stripped of
   the improvements made upon it by the labor of the occupier,
   the face of the country would be 'as bare and naked as an
   American prairie.' This fundamental difference between the
   English and Irish land systems has never been fully
   appreciated in England, where the landlord's expenditure on
   buildings, fences, drainage, farm roads, etc., and on
   maintenance absorbs a large part of the rental. Reform of the
   Irish system began in 1870. Before that time little had been
   done to protect the Irish tenant except to forbid evictions at
   night, on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, and the pulling off
   the roofs of houses until the inmates had been removed. The
   Land Act of 1870 recognized, in principle, the tenant's
   property in his improvements by giving him a right to claim
   compensation if disturbed or evicted. This was not what the
   tenants wanted, viz., security of tenure. The results of
   compensation suits by 'disturbed' tenants were uncertain;
   compensation for improvements was limited in various ways, and
   the animus of the courts administering the act was distinctly
   hostile to the tenants. Many works necessary to the existence
   of tenants on small farms were not improvements in the eyes of
   the landlord, of the law, or of the judges; it was often
   impossible to adduce legal evidence of costly works done
   little by little, and at intervals, representing the savings
   of labor embodied in drainage, reclamation, or fencing.
   Buildings and other works of a superior character might be
   adjudged 'unsuitable' to small farms, and therefore not the
   subject of any compensation; moreover, it was expressly laid
   down that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of works
   effected wholly at his expense were to be accounted
   compensation to him by the landlord, and that, therefore, by
   lapse of time, the tenant's improvements became the landlord's
   property. The act of 1870 tended to make capricious and
   heartless evictions expensive and therefore less common; but
   it gave no security of tenure, and left the landlord still at
   liberty to raise the rent of improving tenants. It left the
   tenant still in a state of dependence and servility; it gave
   him no security for his expenditure, for the landlord's right
   to keep the rent continually rising was freely exercised. Even
   if the act had been liberally administered, it would have
   failed to give contentment, satisfy the demands of justice, or
   encourage the expenditure of capital by tenant farmers.
   Measure after measure proposed by Irish members for further
   reforms were rejected by Parliament between 1870 and 1880, and
   discontent continued to increase. … The Land Law Act of 1881
   was based on the Report in 1880 of the Bessborough Royal
   Commission, but many of the most useful suggestions made were
   disregarded. This act purported to give the Irish yearly
   tenants
   (1) the right to sell their tenancies and improvements;
   (2) the right to have a 'fair' rent fixed by the land courts
   at intervals of fifteen years;
   (3) security of tenure arising from this right to have the
   rent fixed by the court instead of by the landlord.

{1795}

   … No definition of what constituted a fair rent was embodied
   in the act, but what is known as the Healy clause provided that
   'no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of
   improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors.' … When
   the Irish courts came to interpret it, they held that the term
   improvements' meant only that interest in his improvements for
   which the tenant might have obtained compensation under the
   Land Act of 1870 if he had been disturbed or evicted, and that
   the time during which the tenant had had the use and enjoyment
   of his own expenditure was still to be accounted compensation
   made to him by his landlord, so that by mere lapse of time the
   tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. … In
   view of the continually falling prices of agricultural produce
   and diminishing farm profits, the operation of the land laws
   has not brought about peace between landlords and tenants. …
   In 1887 the Cowper Commission reported that the 200,000 rents
   which had been fixed were too high in consequence of the
   continued fall in prices. As a result of the report of this
   commission the fair-rent provisions of the law were extended
   to leaseholders holding for less than sixty years; but the
   courts still adhering to their former methods of
   interpretation, numbers of leaseholders who had made and
   maintained all the buildings, improvements, and equipments of
   their farms found themselves either excluded on narrow and
   technical points, or expressly rented on their own
   expenditure. In 1891 the fair-rent provisions were further
   extended to leaseholders holding for more than sixty years by
   the Redemption of Rent Act, under which long leasehold tenants
   could compel their landlords either to sell to them, or allow
   a fair rent to be fixed on their farms. … Concurrently with
   these attempts to place the relations of landlord and tenant
   on a peaceful and equitable basis, a system of State loans to
   enable tenants to buy their farms has been in operation. …
   It is now proposed to have an inquiry by a select committee of
   the House of Commons into

   (1) the principles adopted in fixing fair rents, particularly
   with respect to tenants' improvements;
   (2) the system of purchase and security offered for the loans
   of public money;
   (3) the organization and administrative work of the Land
   Commission

   —a department which has cost the country about £100,000 a
   year since 1881. The popular demand for inquiry and reform
   comes as much from the Protestant North as from the Catholic
   South."

      _The Nation,
      February 15, 1894._

IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
   The Home Rule Movement.
   Organization of the Land League.

   "For some years after the failure of the Fenian insurrection
   there was no political agitation in Ireland; but in 1873 a new
   national movement began to make itself felt; this was the Home
   Rule Movement. It had been gradually formed since 1870 by one
   or two leading Irishmen, who thought the time was ripe for a
   new constitutional effort; chief among them was Mr. Isaac
   Butt, a Protestant, an eminent lawyer, and an earnest
   politician. The movement spread rapidly, and took a firm hold
   of the popular mind. After the General Election of 1874, some
   sixty Irish Members were returned who had stood before their
   constituencies as Home Rulers. The Home Rule demand is clear
   and simple enough; it asks for Ireland a separate Government,
   still allied with the Imperial Government, on the principles
   which regulate the alliance between the United States of
   America. The proposed Irish Parliament in College Green would
   bear just the same relation to the Parliament at Westminster
   that the Legislature and Senate of every American State bear
   to the head authority of the Congress in the Capitol at
   Washington. All that relates to local business it was proposed
   to delegate to the Irish Assembly; all questions of imperial
   policy were still to be left to the Imperial Government. There
   was nothing very startling, very daringly innovating, in the
   scheme. In most of the dependencies of Great Britain, Home
   Rule systems of some kind were already established. In Canada,
   in the Australasian Colonies, the principle might be seen at
   work upon a large scale; upon a small scale it was to be
   studied nearer home in the neighbouring Island of Man. … At
   first the Home Rule Party was not very active. Mr. Butt used
   to have a regular Home Rule debate once every Session, when he
   and his followers stated their views, and a division was taken
   and the Home Rulers were of course defeated. Yet, while the
   English House of Commons was thus steadily rejecting year
   after year the demand made for Home Rule by the large majority
   of the Irish Members, it was affording a strong argument in
   favour of some system of local Government, by consistently
   outvoting every proposition brought forward by the bulk of the
   Irish Members relating to Irish Questions. … Mr. Butt and
   his followers had proved the force of the desire for some sort
   of National Government in Ireland, but the strength of the
   movement they had created now called for stronger leaders. A
   new man was coming into Irish political life who was destined
   to be the most remarkable Irish leader since O'Connell. Mr.
   Charles Stuart Parnell, who entered the House of Commons in
   1875 as Member for Meath, was a descendant of the English poet
   Parnell, and of the two Parnells, father and son, John and
   Henry, who stood by Grattan to the last in the struggle
   against the Union. He was a grand-nephew of Sir Henry Parnell,
   the first Lord Congleton, the advanced Reformer and friend of,
   Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. He was Protestant, and a member
   of the Protestant Synod. Mr. Parnell set himself to form a
   party of Irishmen in the House of Commons who should be
   absolutely independent of any English political party, and who
   would go their own way with only the cause of Ireland to
   influence them. Mr. Parnell had all the qualities that go to
   make a good political leader, and he succeeded in his purpose.
   The more advanced men in and out of Parliament began to look
   up to him as the real representative of the popular voice. In
   1878 Mr. Butt died. … The leadership of the Irish
   Parliamentary Party was given to Mr. William Shaw, Member for
   Cork County, an able, intelligent man, who proved himself in
   many ways a good leader. In quieter times his authority might
   have remained unquestioned, but these were unquiet, times. The
   decorous and demure attitude of the early Home Rule Party was
   to be changed into a more aggressive action, and Mr. Parnell
   was the champion of the change. It was soon obvious that he
   was the real leader recognised by the majority of the Irish
   Home Rule Members, and by the country behind them. Mr. Parnell
   and his following have been bitterly denounced for pursuing an
   obstructive policy.
{1796}
   They are often written about as if they had invented
   obstruction; as if obstruction of the most audacious kind had
   never been practised in the House of Commons before Mr.
   Parnell entered it. It may perhaps be admitted that the Irish
   Members made more use of obstruction than had been done before
   their time. … The times undoubtedly were unquiet; the policy
   which was called in England obstructive and in Ireland active
   was obviously popular with the vast majority of the Irish
   people. The Land Question, too, was coming up again, and in a
   stronger form than ever. Mr. Butt, not very long before his
   death, had warned the House of Commons that the old land war
   was going to break out anew, and he was laughed at for his
   vivid fancy by the English Press and by English public
   opinion; but he proved a true prophet. Mr. Parnell had
   carefully studied the condition of the Irish tenant, and he
   saw that the Land Act of 1870 was not the last word of
   legislation on his behalf. Mr. Parnell was at first an ardent
   advocate of what came to be known as the Three F's, fair rent,
   fixity of tenure, and free sale. But the Three F's were soon
   to be put aside in favour of more advanced ideas. Outside
   Parliament a strenuous and earnest man was preparing to
   inaugurate the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland.
   Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant. … When
   he grew to be a young man he joined the Fenians, and in 1870,
   on the evidence of an informer, he was arrested and sentenced
   to fifteen years' penal servitude; seven years later he was
   let out on ticket-of-leave. In his long imprisonment he had
   thought deeply upon the political and social condition of
   Ireland and the best means of improving it; when he came out
   he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, and he went in
   for constitutional agitation to reform the Irish land system.
   The land system needed reforming; the condition of the tenant
   was only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. The three
   years from 1876 to 1879 were years of successive bad harvests.
   … Mr. Davitt had been in America, planning out a land
   organization, and had returned to Ireland to carry out his
   plan. Land meetings were held in many parts of Ireland, and in
   October Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Patrick Egan, and Mr.
   Thomas Brennan founded the Irish National Land League, the
   most powerful political organization that had been formed in
   Ireland since the Union. The objects of the Land League were
   the abolition of the existing landlord system and the
   introduction of peasant proprietorship."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      Outline of Irish History,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. P. O'Connor,
      The Parnell Movement,
      chapters 8-10._

      _A. V. Dicey,
      England's Case against Home Rule._

      _G. Baden-Powell, editor,
      The Truth about Home Rule._

IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
   The breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

   "The new Irish party which followed the lead of Mr. Parnell
   has been often represented by the humourist as a sort of
   Falstaffian 'ragged regiment.' … From dint of repetition
   this has come to be almost an article of faith in some
   quarters. Yet it is curiously without foundation. A large
   proportion of Mr. Parnell's followers were journalists. …
   Those who were not journalists in the Irish party were
   generally what is called well-to-do. … At first there seemed
   no reason to expect any serious disunion between the Irish
   members and the Liberal' party. … The Irish vote in England
   had been given to the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and
   statesmen, without committing themselves to any definite line
   of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments towards Ireland;
   and though indeed nothing was said which could be construed
   into a recognition of the Home Rule claim, still the new
   Ministry was known to contain men favourable to that claim.
   The Irish members hoped for much from the new Government; and,
   on the other hand, the new Government expected to find cordial
   allies in all sections of the Irish party. The appointment of
   Mr. Forster to the Irish Secretaryship was regarded by many
   Irishmen, especially those allied to Mr. Shaw and his
   following, as a marked sign of the good intentions of the
   Government towards Ireland. … The Queen's Speech announced
   that the Peace Preservation Act would not be renewed. This was
   a very important announcement. Since the Union Ireland had
   hardly been governed by the ordinary law for a single year.
   … Now the Government was going to make the bold experiment
   of trying to rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive
   and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, however, contained
   only one other reference to Ireland, in a promise that a
   measure would be introduced for the extension of the Irish
   borough franchise. This was in itself an important promise.
   … But extension of the borough franchise did not seem, to
   the Irish members in 1880 the most important form that
   legislation for Ireland could take just then. The country was
   greatly depressed by its recent suffering; the number of
   evictions was beginning to rise enormously. The Irish members
   thought that the Government should have made some promise to
   consider the land question, and above all should have done
   something to stay the alarming increase of evictions.
   Evictions had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in
   1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase,
   as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110
   families were evicted. An amendment to the Address was at once
   brought forward by the Irish party, and debated at some
   length. The Irish party called for some immediate legislation
   on behalf of the land question. Mr. Forster replied, admitting
   the necessity for some legislation, but declaring that there
   would not be time for the introduction of any such measure
   that session. Then the Irish members asked for some temporary
   measure to prevent the evictions … ; but the Chief Secretary
   answered that while the law existed it was necessary to carry
   it out, and he could only appeal to both sides to be moderate.
   Matters slowly drifted on in this way for a short time. …
   Evictions steadily increased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought
   in a Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then the
   Government, while refusing to accept the Irish measure,
   brought in a Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which adopted
   some of the Irish suggestions. … On Friday, June 25, the
   second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, who
   denied that it was a concession to the anti-rent agitation,
   and strongly denounced the outrages which were taking place in
   Ireland. … This was the point at which difference between
   the Irish party and the Government first became marked.
{1797}
   The increase of evictions in Ireland, following as it did upon
   the widespread misery caused by the failure of the harvests
   and the partial famine, had generated—as famine and hunger
   have always generated—a certain amount of lawlessness.
   Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; here and
   there outrages were committed upon bailiffs, process-servers,
   and agents. In different places, too, injuries had been
   inflicted upon the cattle and horses of landowners and land
   agents. … There is no need, there should be no attempt, to
   justify these crimes. But, while condemning all acts of
   violence, whether upon man or beast, it must be remembered
   that these acts were committed by ignorant peasants of the
   lowest class, maddened by hunger, want, and eviction, driven
   to despair by the sufferings of their wives and children,
   convinced of the utter hopelessness of redress, and longing
   for revenge. … The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was
   carried in the Commons after long debates in which the Irish
   party strove to make its principles stronger. … It was sent
   up to the Lords, where it was rejected on Tuesday, August 3,
   by a majority of 231. The Government answered the appeals of
   Irish members by refusing to take any steps to make the Lords
   retract their decision, or to introduce any similar measure
   that session. From that point the agitation and struggle of
   the past four years [1880-1884] may be said to date."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      England under Gladstone, 1880-1884,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Reid,
      Life of William Edward Forster,
      volume 2, chapter 6-7._

IRELAND: A. D, 1881-1882.
   The Coercion Bill and the Land Act.
   Arrest of the Irish leaders.
   Suppression of the Land League.
   The alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of Mr. Parnell and
   others.

   Early in 1881, the Government armed itself with new powers for
   suppressing the increased lawlessness which showed itself in
   Ireland, and for resisting the systematic policy of
   intimidation which the Nationalists appeared to have planned,
   by the passage of a measure known as the Coercion Bill. This
   was followed, in April, by the introduction of a Land Bill,
   intended to redress the most conspicuous Irish grievance by
   establishing an authoritative tribunal for the determination
   of rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase of small
   holdings by the peasants. The Land Bill became law in August;
   but it failed to satisfy the demands of the Land League or to
   produce a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe
   proceedings were then decided upon by the Government. "The
   Prime Minister, during his visit to Leeds in the first week of
   October, had used language which could bear only one meaning.
   The question, he said, had come to be simply this, 'whether
   law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland;' the Irish people
   must not be deprived of the means of taking advantage of the
   Land Act by force or fear of force. He warned the party of
   disorder that 'the resources of civilisation were not yet
   exhausted.' A few days later Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the
   Guildhall, amid enthusiastic cheers, was able to announce that
   the long-delayed blow had fallen. Mr. Parnell was arrested in
   Dublin under the Coercion Act, and his arrest was followed by
   those of Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly, and other
   prominent leaders of the agitation. The warnings of the
   Government had been met at first with derision and defiance,
   and the earlier arrests were furiously denounced; but the
   energy and persistence of the Government soon began to make an
   impression. … A Parthian shot was fired in the issue of a
   manifesto, purporting to be signed, not only by the 'suspects'
   in Kilmainham, but also by [Michael] Davitt, … in Portland
   Prison, which adjured the tenantry to pay no rent whatever
   until the Government had done penance for its tyranny and
   released the victims of British despotism. This open
   incitement to defiance of legal authority and repudiation of
   legal right was instantly met by the Irish Executive in a
   resolute spirit. On the 20th of October a proclamation was
   issued declaring the League to be 'an illegal and criminal
   association, intent on destroying the obligation of contracts
   and subverting law,' and announcing that its operations would
   thenceforward be forcibly suppressed, and those taking part in
   them held responsible."

      _Annual Summaries reprinted from The Times,
      volume 2, page 155._

   "In the month of April [1882] Mr. Parnell was released from
   Kilmainham on parole—urgent business demanding his presence
   in Paris. This parole the Irish National leader faithfully
   kept. Whether the sweets of liberty had special charms for Mr.
   Parnell does not appear; but certain it is that after his
   return to Kilmainham, the Member for Cork wrote to Captain
   O'Shea, one of the Irish Members, and indirectly to the
   Government, intimating that if the question of arrears could
   be introduced in Parliament by way of relieving the tenants of
   holdings and lessening greatly the number of evictions in the
   country for non-payment of rent, and providing the purchase
   clauses of the Land Bill were discussed, steps might be taken
   to lessen the number of outrages. The Government had the
   intimation conveyed to them, in short, which gave to their
   minds the conviction that Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and
   O'Kelly, once released, and having in view the reforms
   indicated to them, would range themselves on the side of law
   and order in Ireland. Without any contract with the three
   members the release of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly
   was ordered, after they had been confined for a period
   bordering on three months. Michael Davitt had been released,
   likewise, and had been elected for Meath; but the seat was
   declared vacant again, owing to the conditions of his
   ticket-of-leave not permitting his return. Much has been said,
   and much has been written with regard to the release of the
   three Irish M. P.'s. The 'Kilmainham Treaty' has been … a
   term of scorn addressed to Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues.
   … As a fact … there was no Kilmainham Treaty. … Mr.
   Forster [the Secretary for Ireland] resigned because he did
   not think it right to share the responsibility of the release
   of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly. The Government had
   detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the
   purpose of preventing crime, not for punishment, Mr. Forster
   said in vindication. Mr. Forster contended that the unwritten
   law, as promulgated by them, had worked the ruin and the
   injury of the Queen's subjects by instructions of one kind and
   another—biddings carried out to such a degree that no power
   on earth could have allowed it to continue without becoming a
   Government not merely in name but in shame.
{1798}
   Mr. Forster would have given the question of the release of
   the three consideration, if they had pledged themselves not to
   set their law up against the law of the land, or if Ireland
   had been quiet, or if there had been an accession of fresh
   powers on behalf of the Government: but these conditions were
   wanting. What Mr. Forster desired was an avowal of a change of
   purpose. He entreated his colleagues 'not to try to buy
   obedience,' as he termed it, and not to rely on appearances.
   The Government did rely on the intimation of Mr. Parnell … ;
   there was no treaty."

      _W. W. Pimblett,
      English Political History, 1880-1885,
      chapter 10._

IRELAND: A. D. 1882.
   The Phœnix Park murders.

   Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned in April,
   1882, and was succeeded by Lord Frederick Cavendish, brother
   of the Marquis of Hartington and son of the Duke of
   Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same time became Viceroy, in
   place of Lord Cowper, resigned. "On the night of Friday, May
   5th, Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish crossed over to
   Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on the following day. The
   official entry was made in the morning, when the reception
   accorded by the populace to the new officials was described as
   having been very fairly favourable. Events seemed to have
   taken an entirely prosperous turn, and it was hoped that at
   last the long winter of Irish discontent had come to an end.
   On Sunday morning there spread through the United Kingdom the
   intelligence that the insane hatred of English rule had been
   the cause of a crime, even more brutal and unprovoked than any
   of the numerous outrages that had, during the last three
   years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared that Lord
   Frederick Cavendish, having taken the oaths at the Castle,
   took a car about half-past seven in order to drive to the
   Viceregal Lodge. On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent
   Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been repeatedly
   threatened, was walking along, according to his usual custom,
   without any police escort. Lord Frederick dismissed his car,
   and walked with him through the Phœnix Park. There, in broad
   daylight—for it was a fine summer evening—and in the middle
   of a public recreation ground, crowded with people, they were
   surrounded and murdered. More than one spectator witnessed
   what they imagined to be a drunken brawl, saw six men
   struggling together, and four of them drive off outside a car,
   painted red, which had been waiting for them the while, the
   carman sitting still and never turning his head. The bodies of
   the two officials were first discovered by two shop-boys on
   bicycles who had previously passed them alive. Lord Frederick
   Cavendish had six wounds, and Mr. Burke eleven, dealt
   evidently with daggers used by men of considerable strength.
   Lord Spencer himself had witnessed the struggle from the
   windows of the Viceregal Lodge, and thinking that some
   pickpockets had been at work sent a servant to make inquiries.
   A reward of £10,000, together with full pardon to anyone who
   was not one of the actual murderers, was promptly offered, but
   for many long months the telegrams from Dublin closed with the
   significant information—'No definite clue in the hands of the
   police.' All parties in Ireland at once united to express
   their horror and detestation at this dastardly crime."

      _Cassell's Illustrated History of England,
      volume 10, chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. Russell,
      The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech,
      pages 282-291._

IRELAND: A. D. 1884.
   Enlargement of the Suffrage.
   Representation of the People Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

IRELAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Change of opinion in England.
   Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill and Irish Land Bill and
   their defeat.

   "All through the Parliament which sat from 1880 till 1885, the
   Nationalists' party, led by Mr. Parnell, and including at
   first less than half, ultimately about half, of the Irish
   members, was in constant and generally bitter opposition to
   the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But during these five years a
   steady, although silent and often unconscious, process of
   change was passing in the minds of English and Scotch members,
   especially Liberal members, due to their growing sense of the
   mistakes which Parliament committed in handling Irish
   questions, and of the hopelessness of the efforts which the
   Executive was making to pacify the country on the old methods.
   First, they came to feel that the present system was
   indefensible. Then, while still disliking the notion of an
   Irish Legislature, they began to think it deserved
   consideration. Next they admitted, though usually in
   confidence to one another, that although Home Rule might be a
   bad solution, it was a probable one, toward which events
   pointed. Last of all, and not till 1884, they asked themselves
   whether, after all, it would be a bad solution, provided a
   workable scheme could be found. But as no workable scheme had
   been proposed, they still kept their views, perhaps unwisely,
   to themselves, and although the language held at the general
   election of 1885 showed a great advance in the direction of
   favoring Irish self-government, beyond the attitude of 1880,
   it was still vague and hesitating, and could the more easily
   remain so because the constituencies had not (strange as it
   may now seem) realized the supreme importance of the Irish
   question. Few questions were put to candidates on the subject,
   for both candidates and electors wished to avoid it. It was
   disagreeable; it was perplexing; so they agreed to leave it on
   one side. But when the result of the Irish elections showed,
   in December, 1885, an overwhelming majority in favor of the
   Home Rule party, and when they showed, also, that this party
   held the balance of power in Parliament, no one could longer
   ignore the urgency of the issue. There took place what
   chemists call a precipitation of substance held in solution.
   Public opinion on the Irish question had been in a fluid
   state. It now began to crystallize, and the advocates and
   opponents of Irish self-government fell asunder into two
   masses, which soon solidified. This process was hastened by
   the fact that Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which,
   given by himself some months before, had been largely
   overlooked, now became generally understood. … In the spring
   of 1886 the question could be no longer evaded or postponed.
   It was necessary to choose between … two courses: the
   refusal of the demand for self-government, coupled with the
   introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or the concession of
   it by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. …
{1799}
   How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into the House
   of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and
   excitement unparalleled since 1832: how, after debates of
   almost unprecedented length, it was defeated in June, by a
   majority of thirty; how the policy it embodied was brought
   before the country at the general election, and failed to win
   approval; how the Liberal party has been rent in twain upon
   the question; how Mr. Gladstone resigned, and has been
   succeeded by a Tory Ministry, which the dissentient Liberals,
   who condemn Home Rule, are now supporting—all this is …
   well known.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

   … But the causes of the disaster may not be equally
   understood. … First, and most obvious, although not most
   important, was the weight of authority arrayed against the
   scheme. … The two most eminent leaders of the moderate
   Liberal, or, as it is often called, Whig, party, Lord
   Hartington and Mr. Goschen, both declared against the bill,
   and put forth all their oratory and influence against it. At
   the opposite extremity of the party, Mr. John Bright, the
   veteran and honored leader of the Radicals, Mr. Chamberlain,
   the younger and latterly more active and prominent chief of
   that large section, took up the same position of hostility.
   Scarcely less important was the attitude of the social
   magnates of the Liberal party all over the country. … As, at
   the preceding general election, in December, 1885, the
   Liberals had obtained a majority of less than a hundred over
   the Tories, a defection such as this was quite enough to
   involve their defeat. Probably the name of Mr. Bright alone
   turned the issue in some twenty constituencies, which might
   otherwise have cast a Home Rule vote. The mention of this
   cause, however, throws us back on the further question, Why
   was there such a weight of authority against the scheme
   proposed by Mr. Gladstone? How came so many of his former
   colleagues, friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him
   on this occasion? Besides some circumstances attending the
   production of the bill, … which told heavily against it,
   there were three feelings which worked upon men's minds,
   disposing them to reject it. The first of these was dislike
   and fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the previous
   House of Commons this party had been uniformly and bitterly
   hostile to the Liberal Government. Measures intended for the
   good of Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been
   ungraciously received, treated as concessions extorted, for
   which no thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must
   be made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction had
   been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining the
   liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other measures.
   Some members of the Irish party, apparently with the approval
   of the rest, had systematically sought to delay all English
   and Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of
   Parliament to a dead stop. … There could be no doubt as to
   the hostility which they, still less as to that which their
   fellow-countrymen in the United States, had expressed toward
   England, for they had openly wished success to Russia while
   war seemed impending with her, and the so-called Mahdi of the
   Sudan was vociferously cheered at many a Nationalist meeting.
   … To many Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish
   Parliament seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand
   over to these men the government of Ireland, with all the
   opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite party in
   Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all very well to
   urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had pursued when
   their object was to extort Home Rule would be dropped, because
   superfluous, when Home Rule had been granted; or to point out
   that an Irish Parliament would probably contain different men
   from those who had been sent to Westminster as Mr. Parnell's
   nominees. Neither of these arguments could overcome the
   suspicious antipathy which many Englishmen felt. … The
   internal condition of Ireland supplied more substantial
   grounds for alarm. … Three-fourths of the people are Roman
   Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant fourth
   sub-divided into bodies not fond of one another, who have
   little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony in
   Ulster, many English families have settled here and there
   through the country. They have been regarded as intruders by
   the aboriginal Celtic population, and many of them, although
   hundreds of years may have passed since they came, still look
   on themselves as rather English than Irish. … Many people in
   England assumed that an Irish Parliament would be under the
   control of the tenants and the humbler class generally, and
   would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They went
   farther, and made the much bolder assumption that as such a
   Parliament would be chosen by electors, most of whom were
   Roman Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic
   priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed
   that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the
   abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords
   and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies.
   … The fact stood out that in Ireland two hostile factions
   had been contending for the last sixty years, and that the
   gift of self-government might enable one of them to tyrannize
   over the other. True, that party was the majority, and,
   according to the principles of democratic government,
   therefore entitled to prevail. But it is one thing to admit a
   principle and another to consent to its application. The
   minority had the sympathy of the upper classes in England,
   because the minority contained the landlords. It had the
   sympathy of a large part of the middle class, because it
   contained the Protestants. … There was another anticipation,
   another forecast of evils to follow, which told most of all
   upon English opinion. This was the notion that Home Rule was
   only a stage in the road to the complete separation of the two
   islands."

      _J. Bryce,
      Past and Future of the Irish Question
      (New Princeton Review, Jan., 1887)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
   The "Plan of Campaign."

   On the 11th of September Mr. Parnell had introduced in the
   House of Commons a bill to make temporary provision for the
   relief of suffering tenants in Ireland, and it had been
   defeated after a sharp debate by a majority of 95. The chief
   argument for the bill had been that "something must be done to
   stay evictions during the approaching winter. The rents would
   be due in November, and the fall in agricultural prices had
   been so great, that the sale of their whole produce by the
   tenants would not, it was contended, bring in money enough to
   enable them to pay in full. … The greatest public interest
   in the subject was roused by Lord Clanricarde's evictions at
   Woodford in Galway. … His quarrel with his Woodford tenants
   was of old standing.
{1800}
   When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament the National
   League urged them not to bring matters to a crisis, but their
   sufferings were too great to be borne, and they set the
   National League at defiance, and established a Plan of
   Campaign of their own. Lord Clanricarde would grant them no
   reduction, and they leagued themselves together, 316 in
   number, and when the November rent day came round in 1885 they
   resolved not to pay any rent at all if twenty-five per cent.
   reduction was refused. This was refused, and they withheld
   their rent. … The eviction of four of these tenants, in
   August, 1886, attracted general attention by the long fight
   the people made for their homes. Each house was besieged and
   defended like some mediæval city. One stone house, built by a
   tenant at a cost of £200, got the name of Saunders's fort. It
   was held by a garrison of 24, who threw boiling water on their
   assailants, and in one part of the fight threw out among them
   a hive of bees. … To evict these four men the whole
   available forces of the Crown in Galway were employed from
   Thursday the 19th of August to Friday the 27th. Seven hundred
   policemen and soldiers were present to protect the emergency
   men who carried out the evictions, and 60 peasants were taken
   to Galway gaol. It was to meet cases of this kind that, after
   the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill, the Plan
   of Campaign was started. In a speech at Woodford on the 17th
   of October Mr. John Dillon gave an outline of the scheme on
   which he thought a tenants' campaign against unjust rents
   might be started and carried on all over the country. … On
   the 23rd of October the 'Plan of Campaign' was published in
   full detail in 'United Ireland.' The first question to be
   answered, said the 'Plan,' was, How to meet the November
   demand for rent? On every estate the tenantry were to come
   together and decide whether to combine or not in resistance to
   exorbitant rent. When they were assembled, if the priest were
   not with them, they were to 'appoint an intelligent and sturdy
   member of their body as chairman, and after consulting, decide
   by resolution on the amount of abatement they will demand.' A
   committee of six or more and the chairman were then to be
   elected, to be called a Managing Committee, to take charge of
   the half year's rent of each tenant should the landlord refuse
   it. Everyone present was to pledge himself

   (1) To abide by the decision of the majority;
   (2) To hold no communication with the landlord or his agents,
   except in presence of the body of the tenantry;
   (3) To accept no settlement for himself that was not given to
   every tenant on the estate.

   Having thus pledged themselves each to the others they were to
   go to the rent office in a body on the rent day, or the gale
   day, as it is called in Ireland, and if the agent refused to
   see them in a body they were to depute the chairman to act as
   their spokesman and tender the reduced rent. If the agent
   refused to accept it, then the money was to be handed to the
   Managing Committee 'to fight the landlord with.' The fund thus
   got together was to be employed in supporting tenants who were
   dispossessed by sale or ejectment. The National League was to
   guarantee the continuance of the grants if needful after the
   fund was expended, or as long as the majority of the tenants
   held out."

      _P. W. Clayden,
      England under the Coalition,
      chapter. 8._

IRELAND: A. D. 1888-1889.
   The Parnell Commission.

   Early in 1887, certain letters appeared in "The Times"
   newspaper, of London, one of which, printed in facsimile,
   "implied Mr. Parnell's sanction to the Park murders of 1882."
   It created a great sensation, and, "after many bitter debates
   in Parliament, a commission was appointed (1888) consisting of
   three judges to inquire not only into the authenticity of this
   and other letters attributed to several persons as their
   authors, but into the whole course of conduct pursued by many
   of the Irish Members of Parliament, in reference to the
   previous agitation in Ireland and their connexion with an
   extreme faction in America, who tried to intimidate this
   country by dastardly attempts to blow up our public buildings
   on several occasions between the years 1884 and 1887. The
   court sat from the winter months of 1888 until the summer of
   the following year, and examined dozens of witnesses,
   including Mr. Parnell and most of the other accused members,
   as well as dozens of the Irish peasantry who could give
   evidence as to outrages in their several districts. One of the
   witnesses, a mean and discarded Dublin journalist named
   Pigott, turned out to be the forger of the letters; and,
   having fled from the avenging hand of justice to Madrid, there
   put an end to his life by means of a revolver. Meantime, the
   interest in the investigation had flagged, and the report of
   the Commission, which deeply implicated many of the Irish
   members as to their connexion with the Fenian Society previous
   to their entrance to Parliament, on their own acknowledgment,
   fell rather flat on the public ear, wearied out in reiteration
   of Irish crime from the introduction of the Land League until
   the attempt to blow up London Bridge by American filibusters
   (1886). The unfortunate man Pigott had sold his forged letters
   to the over credulous Times newspaper at a fabulous price; and
   even experts in handwriting, so dexterously had they been
   manipulated, were ready to testify in open court to the
   genuineness of the letters before the tragic end of their
   luckless author left not a particle of doubt as to their
   origin."

      _R. Johnston,
      Short History of the Queen's Reign,
      page 65._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir C. Russell,
      The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech for the Defence._

      _M. Davitt, Speech in Defence._

IRELAND: A. D. 1889-1891.
   Political fall and death of Mr. Parnell.

   On the 28th of December, 1889, Captain O'Shea, one of the
   Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, filed a petition for
   divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Mr.
   Parnell. The Irish leader tacitly confessed his guilt by
   making no answer, and in November, 1890, the divorce was
   granted to Captain O'Shea. In the following June Mr. Parnell
   and Mrs. O'Shea were married. The stigma which this affair put
   upon Mr. Parnell caused Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the
   English Liberals, to demand his retirement from the leadership
   of the Home Rule Party. He refused to give way, and was
   supported in the refusal by a minority of his party. The
   majority, however, took action to depose him, and the party
   was torn asunder. A sudden illness ended Mr. Parnell's life on
   the 6th of October, 1891; but his death failed to restore
   peace, and the Irish Nationalists are still divided.

IRELAND: A. D. 1893.
   Passage of the Home Rule Bill by the British House of Commons.
   Its defeat by the House of Lords.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.

   ----------IRELAND: End--------

{1801}

IRENE, Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 797-802.

IRISH NIGHT, The.

      See LONDON: A. D. 1688.

IRMINSUL, The.

      See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

IRON AGE.

      See STONE AGE.

IRON CROSS, Order of the.

   A Prussian order of knighthood instituted in 1815 by Frederick
   William III.

IRON CROWN, The Order of the,

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

IRON CROWN OF LOMBARDY, The.

      See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

IRON MASK, The Man in the.

   "It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of
   extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to
   which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698;
   he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles,
   and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of
   Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This
   singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little
   before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense
   curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his
   'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most
   touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated:
   no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What
   interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for
   concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many
   explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical,
   have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask'
   (an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not
   of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those
   'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob
   (M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this
   subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and
   skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to
   establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that
   he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to
   fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us
   to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the
   minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the
   prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in
   March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this
   material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a
   return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable
   on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents
   attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and
   that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air
   before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more
   presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by
   several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort
   ('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion
   that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of
   Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in
   1679, for having deceived the French government, and having
   sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it.
   But however striking, in certain respects, may be the
   resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally
   guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles,
   however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli
   was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern
   position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their
   letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with
   a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions
   relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the
   keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these
   traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details
   and documents given by the learned and judicious Father
   Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner
   at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after
   the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask
   that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken
   after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the
   Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him
   after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always
   persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more
   dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the
   most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will
   always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire,
   under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his
   'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this
   opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the
   secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne
   of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was
   perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for
   monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right
   to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of
   conjecture."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, page 40, foot-note._

   "The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a
   fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way
   towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A
   letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been
   long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length
   been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest
   General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti
   without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal
   his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order
   was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that
   the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with
   iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with
   the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to
   communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with
   respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew
   the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of
   no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive
   for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among
   his great officers, or the soldiery."

      _The Spectator,
      October 14, 1893._

   The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject
   of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at
   length, in the light of official records and correspondence,
   by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of
   whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le
   Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de
   Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave
   small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other
   than General de Burlonde,

      ALSO IN:
      _G. A. Ellis,
      True History of the State Prisoner commonly called
      the Iron Mask._

      _E. Lawrence,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98)._

      _M. Topin,
      The Man in the Iron Mask
      (Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333)._

      _Quarterly Review,
      volume 34, page 19._

{1802}

IRONCLAD OATH.

   An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by
   the Congress of the United States, during the War of the
   Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected
   or appointed to any office under the Government of the United
   States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear
   that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United
   States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance,
   counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed
   hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither
   sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions
   of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority
   in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded
   a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the
   United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, page 88._

IRONSIDES, Cromwell's.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

"IRONSIDES, Old."

   A name popularly given to the American frigate "Constitution."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, The.

   According to their traditions, the founder of the League or
   confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the
   Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the
   Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

   He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about
   the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with
   grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but
   all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in
   which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at
   home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had
   elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation
   which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a
   confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few,
   if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another,
   been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said
   to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had
   evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The
   system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory
   league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to
   retain its own council and its management of local affairs,
   the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate,
   composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding
   office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs
   throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more
   remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It
   was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its
   proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the
   federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be
   included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the
   positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their
   statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical
   evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond
   ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very
   great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised
   held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It
   proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of
   the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength
   made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian
   tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the
   common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter
   nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became
   intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An
   accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the
   name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities,
   led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some
   investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga
   tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the
   Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of
   the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the
   name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion
   between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another
   form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than
   a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting
   History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally
   Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who
   presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down
   from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures,
   which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name
   of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and
   dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in
   works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy
   and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he
   returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had
   descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled
   legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the
   latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr.
   Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and
   the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by
   transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him
   with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways.
   Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha
   Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating
   either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity
   Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and
   his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to
   this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow;
   and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois
   lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern
   literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and
   companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and
   the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle
   ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western
   nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both
   with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous
   confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto
   disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga
   reformer."

      _H. Hale, editor,
      The Iroquois Book of Rites
      (Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature,
      number 2, pages 21-36)._

{1803}

IRREDENTISTS.

   "This is the name given to a political organisation formed in
   1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from
   foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all
   those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under
   foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta'
   party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence
   of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern
   Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy,
   or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

      _J. S. Jeans,
      Italy (National Life and Thought, chapter 8)._

ISAAC II. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

   Isaac II. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), 1185-1195.

ISABELLA,
   Queen of Castile
   (wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

   Isabella I., Queen of Spain, 1833-1868.

ISABELLA.
   The city founded by Columbus on the island of Hispaniola, or
   Hayti.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

ISANDLANA, The English disaster at (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ISASZEG, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

ISAURIAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

ISAURIANS, The.

   The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers,
   who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between
   Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north.
   They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the
   spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to
   punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron
   hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order,
   although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their
   strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great
   campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless
   depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become
   confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in
   the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best
   soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne
   at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

      _E. W. Brooks,
      The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
      (English Historical Review, April, 1893)._

ISCA.

   The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is
   identified with modern Exeter and the other with
   Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 5._

      See EXETER, ORIGIN OF;
      also, CAERLEON.

ISHMAELIANS, The.
   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
   also, ASSASSINS;
   and CARMATHIANS.

ISIDORE, The False Decretals of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

ISINÆ.

      See CAUSENNÆ.

ISLAM.

   "The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word
   meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its
   professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered
   themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of
   the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,'
   that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or
   sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the
   two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

   I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent,
   omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in
   Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no
   God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes,
   also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran,
   in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the
   soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's
   absolute decree for good and evil.

   II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:
   (1) Recital of the formula of Belief,
   (2) Prayer with Ablution,
   (3) Fasting,
   (4) Almsgiving,
   (5) the Pilgrimage.

   … The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran
   and to it primary reference is made; but … some more
   extended and discriminating code became necessary. The
   deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or
   Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices
   of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested
   with the force of law, and with some of the authority of
   inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah
   afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic
   belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is
   based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or
   founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of
   these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni
   sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above,
   and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having
   authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In
   this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or
   partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and
   husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own
   traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two
   sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of
   belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia
   doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual
   lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali
   and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children
   of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian
   Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the
   Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and
   formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni
   Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the
   infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the
   Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this
   name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the
   Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but
   these … are united in asserting that the first three
   Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had
   possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable
   inheritance of Ali."

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10._

   "The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali,
   Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth
   generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they
   successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked
   the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last
   of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the
   Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his
   predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad:
   the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries
   pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of
   judgment."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Sell,
      The Faith of Islam._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapters 3 and 7._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 2, chapter 1._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism,
      chapters 5-13._

      _R. Bosworth Smith,
      Mohammed and Mohammedanism_

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 3._

      See, also,
      MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

{1804}

ISLAM, Dar-ul-, and Dar-ul-harb.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

ISLAND NUMBER TEN, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ISLE OF FRANCE.

   The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name
   of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

ISLE ROYALE.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

ISLES, Lords of the.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504,
      and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

      See CANARY ISLANDS.

ISLY, Battle of (1843).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

ISMAIL, Khedive of Egypt, The reign and the fall of.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869; 1870-1883;
      and 1875-1882.

   Ismail I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1502-1523.

   Ismail II., Shah of Persia, 1576-1577.

ISMAIL, Siege and capture of (1790).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;
      also, ASSASSINS;
      and CARMATHIANS.

ISONOMY.
ISOTIMY.
ISAGORIA.

   "The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a
   legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient
   Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for
   all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all,
   —Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference
   to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 12._

ISONZO, Battle of the (A. D. 489).

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

ISOPOLITY.

   "Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with
   the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus
   municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed
   in the course of time, but its essential features in early
   times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between
   the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that
   any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the
   other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of
   a citizen."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 13 (volume 1)._

ISRAEL.

      See JEWS.

ISRAEL, Lost Ten Tribes of.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

ISSUS, Battle of (B. C. 333).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ISTÆVONES, The.

      See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

   The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire,
   of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3, footnote._

ISTER, The.

   The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of
   the Theiss and the Save.

ISTHMIAN GAMES.

      See NEMEAN.

   ----------ISTRIA: Start--------

ISTRIA:
   Slavonic Occupation of.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

ISTRIA: A. D. 1797.
   Acquisition by Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

   ----------ISTRIA: End--------

ISTRIANS, The.

      See ILLYRIANS.

ISURIUM.

   A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief
   town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified
   with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets
   continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

ITALI, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

ITALIAN WAR, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ITALIOTES.

      See SICELIOTEB.

   ----------ITALY: Start--------

[Image: Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the
 Seventh Century, and A. D. 1492.]

ITALY:
   Ancient.
   Early Italians.

   "It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the
   beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed,
   as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from
   the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

   The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe
   who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually
   adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which
   most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the
   Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In
   the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from
   these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about
   the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the
   little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then
   followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of
   the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream
   to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in
   the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts
   all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the
   provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section. 2._

   "Philological research teaches us to distinguish three
   primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that
   which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two
   main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the
   dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As
   to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.
{1805}
   At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or
   Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct
   language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly
   remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very
   distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different
   from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of
   … a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between
   the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by
   no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian
   language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must
   rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,
   as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or
   rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the
   Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater
   precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with
   propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests
   the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided
   into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the
   latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and
   Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in
   historical times. … These examples [philological examples,
   given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected
   from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to
   establish the individuality of the Italian stock as
   distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic
   family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the
   nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,
   of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the
   Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …
   Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin
   stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It
   is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or
   Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,
   however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no
   doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite
   branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded
   as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into
   their peninsula from the north. The advance of the
   Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of
   Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be
   clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely
   historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the
   Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar
   direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,
   before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 2-3._

      See, also,
      ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;
      UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;
      also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

   "In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de
   Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian
   archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their
   country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and
   excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles,
   extending over several years, the learned father has contended
   for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on
   archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he
   here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among
   the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects
   of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian
   civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the
   first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of
   the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike
   Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only
   the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but
   also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone
   constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan
   language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer
   further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether
   in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and
   that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In
   Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the
   Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of
   Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two
   migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other
   Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the
   coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy
   at the present time, could date its civilisation no further
   back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for
   Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle
   of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow
   Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the
   excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so
   will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian
   archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

      _Academy,
      March 31, 1894, page 273._

ITALY:
   Under the dominion of Rome.

      See ROME.

ITALY:
   Invasions Repelled by Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;
      CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

ITALY: A. D. 400-410.
   Alaric's invasions.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403;
      and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ITALY: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion.
   The origin of Venice.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452; and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ITALY: A. D. 476-553.
   The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
   The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.
   Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476, to 535-553.

ITALY: A. D. 539-553.
   Frank invasions.

         See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

ITALY: A. D. 554-800.
   Rule of the Exarchs of Ravenna.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ITALY: A. D. 568-800.
   Lombard conquests and kingdom.
   Rise of the Papal power at Rome.
   Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.
   Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

   "Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a
   complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with
   that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and
   after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of
   the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,
   leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch
   of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection
   was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to
   occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong
   enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no
   resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the
   spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their
   repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,
   whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars
   and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of
   Ravenna.
{1806}
   The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his
   confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been
   the victims of his anger. But as the city became more
   accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a
   predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,
   and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of
   the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in
   the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse
   (though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was
   now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from
   an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born
   among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have
   lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,
   determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast
   obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt
   sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,
   excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with
   one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a
   symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to
   sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the
   Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not
   reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

   Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity:
   falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as
   the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all
   but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the
   moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a
   robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic
   chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for
   Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already
   opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the
   palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis
   becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter
   his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste
   to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he
   could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short)
   made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the
   third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's
   full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to
   abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure
   from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people.
   A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy
   See, now for the first time invoked as an international power,
   pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal
   office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. …
   The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne
   was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge
   its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail
   Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time
   at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter
   himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank
   bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate
   in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the
   title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the
   restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the
   possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne
   swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope
   Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed
   himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy
   thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years
   Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in
   the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear
   that he sent thither any official representative; while at the
   same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit
   the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the
   years of his reign to date documents."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   "Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German
   race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and
   then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A
   German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were
   still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its
   supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the
   bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,
   melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language
   disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,
   and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of
   the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of
   Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of
   Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of
   provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful
   results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the
   bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The
   German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at
   the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination
   of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held
   sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the
   idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,
   of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman
   primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of
   the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had
   wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim
   to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the
   restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the
   contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at
   the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'
   And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in
   the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to
   the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more
   than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his
   person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same
   authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him
   king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,
   800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar
   of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or
   wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it
   may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed
   a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to
   Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great
   and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …
{1807}
   Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its
   relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but
   the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and
   Constantine. But substantially it was something very
   different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but
   it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world
   which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which
   had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and
   mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest
   of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with
   them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of
   Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at
   Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once
   accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and
   Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,
   perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still
   the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat
   in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by
   two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.
   The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the
   true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at
   Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,
   till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern
   empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 7._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

ITALY: A. D. 685-1014.
   The founding of the duchy of Tuscany.

      See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

ITALY: A. D. 781.
   Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

   In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
   two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and
   Ludwig on the thrones.

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 16._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 800-1016.
   Conflict of Greeks, Saracens and Franks.

   "The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the
   kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th
   and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of
   Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment
   the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they
   maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two
   philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing
   state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno,
   and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the
   competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common
   inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years,
   Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders
   were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a
   perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons
   issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too
   much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more
   formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A
   colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands
   the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial
   depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union
   of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded
   between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the
   first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of
   Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his
   associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the
   infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the
   Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir
   submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded
   in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest
   had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but
   their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual
   complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve
   the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured
   the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia
   and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their
   supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of
   Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of
   Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that
   line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had
   never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the
   neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was
   enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures
   of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and
   Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin
   world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and
   tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the
   metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title
   of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was
   assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre
   was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were
   feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the
   forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the
   imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of
   those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of
   Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and
   barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona
   (A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against
   the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of
   Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his
   Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with
   the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved,
   and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the
   virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom
   they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of
   rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of
   Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled
   by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 56._

ITALY: A. D. 803-810.
   Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.
   The founding of Modern Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

ITALY: A. D. 810-961.
   Spread of Venetian commerce and naval prowess.

      See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

{1808}

ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
   In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.
   The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

   In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three
   grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together
   with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was
   assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor.
   Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three
   sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered
   and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom
   fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on
   his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together
   with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king,
   Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy,
   together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last
   legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles
   the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888)
   the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had
   united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of
   Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to
   reign, was never again united to Germany; East France
   (Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two
   principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf
   proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with
   Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between
   the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The
   former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter,
   and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor
   by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them
   away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his
   flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again
   free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor.
   Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to
   Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he
   retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928.
   None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in
   Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In
   A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors.
   After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings
   of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can
   be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or
   senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician,
   and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite
   extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the
   papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were
   at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous
   German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and
   reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a
   lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire"
   of modern history.

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 6._

      See GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 24._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      See, also,
      ROME: A. D. 903-964;
      and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

ITALY: A. D. 900-924.
   Ravaged by the Hungarians.

   "The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but
   from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the
   apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered
   country. They requested leave to retire; their request was
   proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000
   Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness.
   Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous
   in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was
   only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians
   appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were
   consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared
   about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and
   silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their
   country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the
   neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped
   resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from
   the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or
   inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was
   stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
   Subjection to Germany.

   "Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were
   successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from
   961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became
   extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of
   Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this
   period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve
   times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they
   always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia;
   there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from
   their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid,
   and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign
   sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his
   incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not
   efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where
   his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to
   acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were,
   whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues:
   sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had
   survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars;
   sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom
   Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with
   duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that
   lords elected for life would remain more dependent than
   hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the
   magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people,
   received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and
   took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids
   (placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months,
   the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles
   retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to
   their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior
   authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than
   what they could themselves employ to assert what they called
   their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce
   collision, and the war was universal."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 1._

{1809}

   During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom
   a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was
   hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more
   and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves,
   and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the
   German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude
   soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged
   in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as
   is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary
   vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement
   for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry
   II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which
   inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against
   that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were
   disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany,
   which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They
   offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William
   duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept
   the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of
   Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and
   tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to
   claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear
   that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly
   elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took
   place or not, we may certainly date from that time the
   subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an
   unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes
   conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had
   never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised
   this superiority."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was
   reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a
   continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that
   kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the
   Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate
   and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of
   Rome itself."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090.
   Conquests and settlement of the Normans.

   "A pilgrimage first took the Normans to Southern Italy, where
   they were to found a kingdom. Here there were, if I may so
   speak, three wrecks, three ruins of nations—Lombards in the
   mountains, Greeks in the ports, Sicilian and African Saracens
   rambling over the coasts. About the year 1000, some Norman
   pilgrims assist the inhabitants of Salerno to drive out a
   party of Arabs, who were holding them to ransom. Being well
   paid for the service, these Normans attract others of their
   countrymen hither. A Greek of Bari, named Melo or Meles, takes
   them into pay to free his city from the Greeks of Byzantium.
   Next they are settled by the Greek republic of Naples at the
   fort of Aversa, which lay between that city and her enemies,
   the Lombards of Capua (A. D. 1026). Finally, the sons of a
   poor gentleman of the Cotentin, Tancred of Hauteville, seek
   their fortune here. Tancred had twelve children; seven by the
   same mother. It was during William's [the Conqueror's]
   minority, when numbers of the barons endeavoured to withdraw
   themselves from the Bastard's yoke, that these sons of
   Tancred's directed their steps towards Italy, where it was
   said that a simple Norman knight had become count of Aversa.
   They set off penniless, and defrayed the expenses of their
   journey by the sword (A. D. 1037?). The Byzantine governor, or
   Katapan, engaged their services, and led them against the
   Arabs. But their countrymen beginning to flock to them, they
   no sooner saw themselves strong enough than they turned
   against their paymasters, seized Apulia [A. D. 1042], and
   divided it into twelve countships. This republic of
   Condottieri held its assemblies at Melphi. The Greeks
   endeavoured to defend themselves, but fruitlessly. They
   collected an army of 60,000 Italians; to be routed by the
   Normans, who amounted to several hundreds of well-armed men.
   The Byzantines then summoned their enemies, the Germans, to
   their aid; and the two empires, of the East and West,
   confederated against the sons of the gentleman of Coutances.
   The all-powerful emperor, Henry the Black (Henry III.),
   charged Leo IX., who had been nominated pope by him, and who
   was a German and kin to the imperial family, to exterminate
   these brigands. The pope led some Germans and a swarm of
   Italians against them [1053]; but the latter took to flight at
   the very beginning of the battle, and left the warlike pontiff
   in the hands of the enemy. Too wary to ill-treat him, the
   Normans piously cast themselves at their prisoner's feet, and
   compelled him to grant them, as a fief of the Church, all that
   they had taken or might take possession of in Apulia,
   Calabria, and on the other side of the strait; so that, in
   spite of himself, the pope became the suzerain of the kingdom
   of the Two Sicilies (A. D. 1052-1053)."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 2._

   The two elder of the sons of Tancred were now dead, and the
   third son, Humphrey, died not long after. A fourth brother,
   Robert, surnamed Guiscard, who had lately arrived from
   Normandy with reinforcements, then established himself (A. D.
   1057) with some difficulty in the leadership and succession.
   "He accomplished the reduction of almost all the country which
   composes the present kingdom of Naples, and, extinguishing the
   long dominion of the Beneventine Lombards and of the eastern
   empire in Italy [see BENEVENTUM, and AMALFI], finally received
   from Pope Nicholas II. the confirmation of the titles which he
   had assumed, of duke of Calabria and Apulia [A. D. 1080]. …
   While Robert Guiscard was perfecting his dominion on the
   continent, his younger brother Roger engaged in the
   astonishing design of conquering the large and beautiful
   island of Sicily from the Saracens with a few Norman
   volunteers. An air of romantic extravagance breathes over all
   the enterprises of the Normans in Italy; and, even if we
   discard the incredible tales which the legends and chronicles
   of the times have preserved of the valour and corporeal
   strength of these northern warriors, enough will remain in the
   authentic results of their expeditions to stagger the reason
   and warm the imagination with attractive visions of chivalrous
   achievement. … We are assured that 300 Christian knights
   were the greatest number which Roger could for many years
   bring into the field; and that 136 routed a prodigious host of
   Saracens at the battle of Ceramio. … But the Saracens were
   embroiled in internal discord, and their island was broken up
   into numerous petty states; we may, therefore, attribute to
   their dissensions a great part of the success which the
   chroniclers of the Normans have assigned to their good swords
   alone. Roger had, however, embarked in an arduous and
   laborious undertaking, which it required the unbending
   perseverance and patient valour of thirty years [A. D.
   1060-1090] to accomplish. … At length, all Sicily bowed to
   his sway; Norman barons were infeuded over its surface; and
   Roger, with the title of great count, held the island as a
   fief of his brother's duchy."

      _G. Proctor,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 2, part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 56._

      _J. W. Barlow,
      Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
      chapters 1-7._

{1810}

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Beginning of the conflict of the Popes with the Emperors.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The War of Investitures.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
   The rise of the republican cities.

   "The war of investitures, which lasted more than sixty years,
   accomplished the dissolution of every tie between the
   different members of the kingdom of Italy. Civil wars have at
   least this advantage,—that they force the rulers of the
   people to consult the wishes of their subjects, oblige them to
   gain affections which constitute their strength, and to
   compensate, by the granting of new privileges, the services
   which they require. The prelates, nobles, and cities of Italy
   obeyed, some the emperor, others the pope; not from a blind
   fear, but from choice, from affection, from conscience,
   according as the political or religious sentiment was
   predominant in each. The war was general, but everywhere waged
   with the national forces. Every city armed its militia, which,
   headed by the magistrates, attacked the neighbouring nobles or
   towns of a contrary party. While each city imagined it was
   fighting either for the pope or the emperor, it was habitually
   impelled exclusively by its own sentiments: every town
   considered itself as a whole, as an independent state, which
   had its own allies and enemies; each citizen felt an ardent
   patriotism, not for the kingdom of Italy, or for the empire,
   but for his own city. At the period when either kings or
   emperors had granted to towns the right of raising
   fortifications, that of assembling the citizens at the sound
   of a great bell, to concert together the means of their common
   defence, had been also conceded. This meeting of all the men
   of the state capable of bearing arms was called a parliament.
   It assembled in the great square, and elected annually two
   consuls, charged with the administration of justice at home,
   and the command of the army abroad. … The parliament, which
   named the consuls, appointed also a secret council, called a
   Consilio di Credenza, to assist the government, composed of a
   few members taken from each division; besides a grand council
   of the people, who prepared the decisions to be submitted to
   the parliament. … As industry had rapidly increased, and had
   preceded luxury,—as domestic life was sober, and the produce
   of labour considerable,—wealth had greatly augmented. The
   citizens allowed themselves no other use of their riches than
   that of defending or embellishing their country. It was from
   the year 900 to the year 1200 that the most prodigious works
   were undertaken and accomplished by the towns of Italy. …
   These three regenerating centuries gave an impulse to
   architecture, which soon awakened the other fine arts. The
   republican spirit which now fermented in every city, and gave
   to each of them constitutions so wise, magistrates so zealous,
   and citizens so patriotic, and so capable of great
   achievements, had found in Italy itself the models which had
   contributed to its formation. The war of investitures had
   given wing to this universal spirit of liberty and patriotism
   in all the municipalities of Lombardy, in Piedmont, Venetia,
   Romagna, and Tuscany. But there existed already in Italy other
   free cities. … Venice, … Ravenna, … Genoa, … Pisa, …
   Rome, Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, Bari, were either never conquered
   by the Lombards, or in subjection too short a time to have
   lost their ancient walls, and the habit of guarding them.
   These cities served as the refuge of Roman civilization. …
   Those cities which had accumulated the most wealth, whose
   walls inclosed the greatest population, attempted, from the
   first half of the twelfth century, to secure by force of arms
   the obedience of such of the neighbouring towns as did not
   appear sufficiently strong to resist them, … to force them
   in to a perpetual alliance, so as to share their good or evil
   fortune, and always place their armed force under the standard
   of the dominant city. … Two great towns in the plains of
   Lombardy surpassed every other in power and wealth: Milan,
   which habitually directed the party of the church; and Pavia,
   which directed that of the empire. Both towns, however, seem
   to have changed parties during the reigns of Lothario III. and
   Conrad II., who, from the year 1125 to 1152 placed in
   opposition the two houses of Guelphs and Ghibelines in
   Germany. … Among the towns of Piedmont, Turin took the lead,
   and disputed the authority of the counts of Savoy, who called
   themselves imperial vicars in that country. … The family of
   the Veronese marquises, … who from the time of the Lombard
   kings had to defend the frontier against the Germans, were
   extinct; and the great cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza,
   Treviso, and Mantua, nearly equal in power, maintained their
   independence. Bologna held the first rank among the towns
   south of the Po. … Tuscany, which had also had its powerful
   marquises, saw their family become extinct with the countess
   Matilda, the contemporary and friend of Gregory VII. Florence
   had since risen in power, destroyed Fiesole, and … was
   considered the head of the Tuscan league; and the more so that
   Pisa at this period thought only of her maritime expeditions.
   … Such was the state of Italy, when the Germanic diet,
   assembled at Frankfort in 1152, conferred the crown on
   Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, and of the house of
   Hohenstaufen."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

      _W. K. Williams,
      The Communes of Lombardy
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, 5-6)._

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      _Europe during the Middle Ages
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclop.,
      volume 1, chapter 1)._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE: 12TH CENTURY.

ITALY: A. D. 1063.
   Birth of Pisan architecture.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Countess Matilda's donation to the Holy See.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

{1811}

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1081-1194.
   Robert Guiscard's invasions of the Eastern Empire.
   Union of Sicily with Apulia, and creation of the Kingdom of
   the Two Sicilies, or Naples.

   "The success of his brother [Roger, in Sicily—see above:
   A. D. 1000-1090] furnished another spur to the ambition of
   Robert Guiscard. Taking advantage of a dynastic revolution at
   Constantinople, he and his son Bohemund commenced a series of
   invasions of the Eastern Empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
   1081-1085] which only ended with his death. These, though
   unsuccessful in their ultimate result, were influential causes
   of the first crusade, and deeply affected the relations of East
   and West for years to come. Meanwhile in Sicily Roger had been
   succeeded by his son [Roger II.], and, in 1127, this heir of
   the destinies of his race added the dukedom of Apulia to that
   of Sicily, obtained from Pope Anacletus the title of king, and
   finally established the Norman kingdom of Naples [also called
   the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]. His character is thus
   described by a contemporary chronicler: 'He was a lover of
   justice and most severe avenger of crime. He abhorred lying;
   did everything by rule, and never promised what he did not
   mean to perform. He never persecuted his private enemies; and
   in war endeavoured on all occasions to gain his point without
   shedding of blood. Justice and peace were universally observed
   throughout his dominions.' During his reign the intercourse
   between England and Sicily was close. The government was
   organized on principles very similar to that of England. …
   Under his wise rule and that of his immediate successors, the
   south of Italy and Sicily enjoyed a transient gleam of
   prosperity and happiness. Their equal and tolerant government,
   far surpassing anything at that day in Europe, enabled the
   Saracen, the Greek, and the Italian to live together in
   harmony elsewhere unknown. Trade and industry flourished, the
   manufacture of silk enriched the inhabitants, and the kingdom
   of Naples was at peace until she was crushed under the iron
   heel of a Teutonic conqueror."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Normans at Palermo
      (Historical Essays, 3d series)._

      _J. W. Barlow,
      Short History of the Normans in South Europe,
      chapters 8-11._

ITALY: A. D. 1096-1102.
   The First Crusades.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1101-1102.

ITALY: A. D. 1138.
   The accession of the Hohenstaufens to the Imperial throne, and
   the origin, in Germany, of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
   The first and second expeditions of Frederick Barbarossa.

   Frederick I., the second of the emperors of the Hohenstaufen
   line, called by the Italians Frederick Barbarossa (Red beard),
   was elected king at Frankfort in March, 1152. In October,
   1154, he crossed the Alps and entered Italy with a strong
   German army, having two purposes in view:

   1. To receive the imperial crown, from the hands of the Pope,
   and to place on his own head, at Pavia, the iron crown of
   Lombardy or Italy.

   2. To reduce to order and submission the rising city-republics
   of Lombardy and Tuscany, which had been growing rapidly in
   independence and power during the last four troubled imperial
   reigns.

   At Roncaglia, he held the diet of the kingdom, and listened to
   many complaints, especially against Milan, which had undoubtedly
   oppressed the weaker towns of its neighbourhood and abused its
   strength. Then he moved through the country, making a personal
   inspection of affairs, and giving a taste of his temper by
   burning the villages which failed to supply provisions to his
   troops with satisfactory promptitude. At Tortona he ordered
   the inhabitants to renounce their alliance with the Milanese.
   They refused, and endured in the upper portion of the city a
   siege of two months. Forced by want of water to surrender, at
   last, they were permitted to go free, but their town was
   sacked and burned. Asti, Chieri, Rosate, and other places of
   more or less importance, were destroyed. Frederick did not
   venture yet to attack Milan, but proceeded to Rome, demanding
   the imperial crown. The pope (Adrian IV.) and the Romans were
   alike distrustful of him, and he was not permitted to bring
   his army into the city. After no little wrangling over
   ceremonious details, and after being compelled to lead the
   horse and to hold the stirrup of the haughty pontiff,
   Barbarossa was finally crowned at St. Peter's, in the Vatican
   suburb. The Romans attempted to interrupt the coronation, and
   a terrible tumult occurred in which a thousand of the citizens
   were slain. But the Germans made no attempt to take possession
   of the city. On the contrary, they withdrew with haste, and
   the emperor led his army back to Germany, burning Spoleto on
   the way, because it failed in submissiveness, and marking a
   wide track of ruin and desolation through Italy as he went.
   This was in the summer of 1155. Three years passed, during
   which the Italian cities grew more determined in their
   independence, the emperor and his German subjects more bitter
   in hostility to them, and the pope and the emperor more
   antagonistic in their ambitions. In 1158 Frederick led a
   second expedition into Italy, especially determined to make an
   end of the contumacy of Milan. He began operations by creating
   a desert of blackened country around the offending city, being
   resolved to reduce it by famine. Mediators, however, appeared,
   who brought about a treaty of pacification, which interrupted
   hostilities for a few weeks. Then the Milanese found occasion
   to accuse the emperor of a treacherous violation of the terms
   of the treaty and again took up arms. The war was now to the
   death. But, before settling to the siege of Milan, Frederick
   gave himself the pleasure, first, of reducing the lesser city
   of Crema, which continued to be faithful among the allies of
   the Milanese. He held some children of the town in his hands,
   as hostages, and he bound them to the towers which he moved
   against the walls, compelling the wretched citizens to kill
   their own offspring in the act of their self-defense. By such
   atrocities as this, Crema was taken, at the end of seven
   months, and destroyed. Then Milan was assailed and
   beleaguered, harassed and blockaded, until, at the beginning
   of March, 1162, the starved inhabitants gave up their town.
   Frederick ordered the doomed city "to be completely evacuated,
   so that there should not be left in it a single living being.
   On the 25th of March, he summoned the militias of the rival
   and Ghibeline cities, and gave them orders to rase to the
   earth the houses as well as the walls of the town, so as not
   to leave one stone upon another. Those of the inhabitants of
   Milan whom their poverty, labour and industry attached to the
   soil, were divided into four open villages, built at a
   distance of at least two miles from the walls of their former
   city. Others sought hospitality in the neighbouring towns of
   Italy. …
{1812}
   Their sufferings, the extent of their sacrifices, the
   recollection of their valour, and the example of their noble
   sentiments, made proselytes to the cause of liberty in every
   city into which they were received." Meantime Frederick
   Barbarossa returned to Germany, with his fame as a puissant
   monarch much augmented.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapters 3-5._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      books 1-6._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Frederick the First, King of Italy
      (Historical Essays, 1st series)._

ITALY: A. D. 1163-1164.
   Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The rival Popes.

   Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the third time in 1163,
   without an army, but imposingly escorted by his German nobles.
   He imagined that the country had been terrorized sufficiently
   by the savage measures of his previous visitation to need no
   more military repression. But he found the Lombard cities
   undismayed in the assertion of their rights, and drawing
   together in unions which had never been possible among them
   before. The hostility of his relations with the Papacy and
   with the greater part of the Church gave encouragement to
   political revolt. His quarrel with Pope Hadrian had been ended
   by the death of the latter, in 1159, but only to give rise to
   new and more disturbing contentions. It had grown so bitter
   before Hadrian died that the Pope had allied himself by treaty
   with Milan, Crema, and other cities resisting Frederick, and
   had promised to excommunicate the emperor within forty days.
   Sudden death frustrated the combination. At the election of
   Hadrian's successor there was a struggle of factions, each
   determined to put its representative in the papal chair, and
   each claiming success. Two rival popes were proclaimed and
   consecrated, one under the name of Alexander III., the other
   as Victor IV. Frederick recognized the latter, who made
   himself the emperor's creature. The greater part of
   Christendom soon gave its recognition to the former, although
   he had been driven to take refuge in France. Pope Alexander
   excommunicated Frederick and Frederick's pope, and Pope Victor
   retorted like anathemas. Whether the curses of Alexander were
   more effectual, or for other reasons, the authority of Victor
   dwindled, and he himself presently died (April 1164), while
   Frederick was making his third inspection of affairs in Italy.
   The emperor found it impossible to execute his unbending will
   without an army. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso held a
   congress and openly associated themselves for common defense.
   Frederick attempted to make use of the militia forces of
   Pavia, Cremona, and other Ghibelline towns against them; but
   he found even these citizen-soldiers so mutinous with
   disaffection that he dared not pursue the undertaking. He
   returned to Germany for an army more in sympathy with his
   obstinate designs against Italian liberty.

      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8, chapters 7-8._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I. against
      the Communes of Lombardy,
      book 7._

ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
   The fourth expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The League of Lombardy.

   "When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the
   mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy [for the fourth time]
   by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to
   Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At
   Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the
   kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress
   the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his
   podestas, and to respect their just liberties; he was desirous
   of separating their cause from that of the pope and the king
   of Sicily; and to give greater weight to his negotiation, he
   marched his army into central Italy. … The towns of the
   Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without
   daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new
   diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,
   between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,
   of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there and joined those
   of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for
   the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The
   deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the
   destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages
   in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city
   of Milan. This confederation was called the League of
   Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents
   afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for
   the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this
   purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they
   should aid each other in repairing in common any damage
   experienced in this sacred cause, by anyone member of the
   confederation: extending even to the past this contract for
   reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. The
   militias of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and
   Treviso, arrived the 27th of April, 1167, on the ground
   covered by the ruins of this great city. They apportioned
   among themselves the labour of restoring the inclosing walls;
   all the Milanese of the four villages, as well as those who
   had taken refuge in the more distant towns, came in crowds to
   take part in this pious work; and in a few weeks the new-grown
   city was in a state to repel the insults of its enemies. Lodi
   was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the
   oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia,
   Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the
   association."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 2._

   Meantime Frederick Barbarossa had made himself master of the
   city of Rome. The Roman citizens had boldly ventured out to
   meet his German army and its allies on the Tusculan hills and
   had suffered a frightful defeat. Then some part of the walls
   of the Leonine City were carried by assault and the
   castellated church of St. Peter's was entered with ax and
   sword. Two German archbishops were among the leaders of the
   force which took the altars of the temple by storm and which
   polluted its floors with blood. Frederick's new 'anti-pope,
   Paschal III., successor to Victor IV., was now enthroned, and
   the empress was formally crowned in the apostolic basilica.
   Pope Alexander, who had been in possession of the city,
   withdrew, and the victorious emperor appeared to have the
   great objects of his burning ambition within his grasp.
   "Destiny willed otherwise. It was now August; the sun was
   burning the arid Campagna and oppressing the weary German
   troops. A slight rain came to refresh them, but the following
   day sudden destruction fell upon the camp.
{1813}
   Deadly fever attacked the army with terrible violence and
   reduced it daily. The men fell in heaps, and when struck down
   in the morning were dead by night. The disease took stronger
   hold owing to the superstitious fears of the army and the idea
   of divine vengeance, for the soldiers remembered in terror the
   profanation of St. Peter's, and they felt the keen edge of the
   destroying angel's sword. Decimated, dismayed, demoralised,
   the imperial army was hopelessly defeated, and Frederick was
   compelled to strike his tents and fly before the in visible
   destroyer. … The flower of his troops lay unburied in the
   furrows, and with difficulty could he manage to carry back to
   their native land the bodies of his noblest and trustiest
   knights. Never perhaps before had Frederick given proofs of
   such unshaken strength of mind. … He returned to Germany
   alone and almost a fugitive, his bravest knights dead, his
   army destroyed, and leaving behind him a whole nation of proud
   and watchful enemies. He returned alone, but his spirit was
   undaunted and dreamt of future victory and of final revenge."

      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8, chapter 10._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.,
      books 8-9._

ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
   The last expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.
   The Battle of Legnano, and the Peace of Constance.

   It was not until 1174—seven years after his flight from the
   Roman pestilence—that Barbarossa was able to return to Italy
   and resume his struggle with Pope Alexander and the Lombard
   cities. He had been detained by troubles in Germany—the
   growing quarrel with his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion,
   of Saxony, more particularly. Meantime, the League of the
   Lombard cities had spread and gained strength, and Pope
   Alexander III. was in active co-operation with it. To better
   fortify the frontiers of Lombardy, the League had built a
   strong new city, at the junction of the Tanaro and Bormida,
   had given it an immediate population of 15,000 people and had
   named it Alessandria, after the Pope. "The Emperor, whose
   arrival in Italy was urgently implored, was retained in
   Germany by his mistrust of Henry the Lion, who, in order to
   furnish himself with a pretext for refusing his assistance in
   the intended campaign without coming to an open breach,
   undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, A. D. 1171; whence, after
   performing his devotions at the holy sepulchre, without
   unsheathing his sword in its defence, he returned to his
   native country. … At length, in 1174, Frederick Barbarossa
   persuaded the sullen duke to perform his duty in the field,
   and for the fourth time [with an army] crossed the Alps. A
   terrible revenge was taken upon Susa, which was burnt to the
   ground. Alexandria [Alessandria] withstood the siege. The
   military science of the age, every 'ruse de guerre,' was
   exhausted by both the besiegers and the besieged, and the
   whole of the winter was fruitlessly expended without any
   signal success on either side. The Lombard league meanwhile
   assembled an immense army in order to oppose Frederick in the
   open field, whilst treason threatened him on another side. …
   Henry also at length acted with open disloyalty, and declared
   to the emperor, who lay sick at Chiavenna, on the lake of
   Como, his intention of abandoning him; and, unshaken by
   Frederick's exhortation in the name of duty and honour to
   renounce his perfidious plans, offered to provide him with
   money on condition of receiving considerable additions to his
   power in Germany, and the free imperial town of Goslar in
   gift. … Frederick, reduced to the alternative of either
   following his insolent vassal, or of exposing himself and his
   weakened forces to total destruction by remaining in his
   present position, courageously resolved to abide the hazard,
   and to await the arrival of fresh reinforcements from Germany;
   the Lombards, however, saw their advantage, and attacked him
   at Legnano, on the 29th of May, 1176. The Swabians (the
   southern Germans still remaining true to their allegiance)
   fought with all the courage of despair, but Berthold von
   Zähringen was taken prisoner, the emperor's horse fell in the
   thickest of the fight, his banner was won by the 'Legion of
   Death,' a chosen Lombard troop, and he was given up as dead.
   He escaped almost by a miracle, whilst his little army was
   entirely overwhelmed."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 151._

   After the disastrous battle of Legnano, Frederic "was at
   length persuaded, through the mediation of the republic of
   Venice, to consent to a truce of six years, the provisional
   terms of which were all favourable to the league. … At the
   expiration of the truce Frederic's anxiety to secure the crown
   for his son overcame his pride, and the famous Peace of
   Constance [A. D. 1183] established the Lombard republics in
   real independence. By the treaty of Constance the cities were
   maintained in the enjoyment of all the regalian rights,
   whether within their walls or in their district, which they
   could claim by usage. Those of levying war, of erecting
   fortifications, and of administering civil and criminal
   justice, were specially mentioned. The nomination of their
   consuls, or other magistrates, was left absolutely to the
   citizens; but they were to receive the investiture of their
   office from an imperial legate. The customary tributes of
   provision during the emperor's residence in Italy were
   preserved; and he was authorized to appoint in every city a
   judge of appeal in civil causes. The Lombard league was
   confirmed, and the cities were permitted to renew it at their
   own discretion; but they were to take every ten years an oath
   of fidelity to the emperor. This just compact preserved, along
   with every security for the liberties and welfare of the
   cities, as much of the imperial prerogatives as could be
   exercised by a foreign sovereign consistently with the
   people's happiness. … The Peace of Constance presented a
   noble opportunity to the Lombards of establishing a permanent
   federal union of small republics. … But dark, long-cherished
   hatreds, and that implacable vindictiveness which, at least in
   former ages, distinguished the private manners of Italy,
   deformed her national character. … For revenge she threw
   away the pearl of great price, and sacrificed even the
   recollection of that liberty which had stalked like a majestic
   spirit among the ruins of Milan."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _U. Balzani,
      The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,
      chapter 6._

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.,
      book 10._

      See, also,
      VENICE: A.D. 1177.

{1814}

A. D. 1183-1250.
   Frederick II. and the end of the Hohenstaufen struggles.

   After the settlement of the Peace of Constance, Frederick
   Barbarossa made no further attempt to destroy the now well
   established liberties of the north Italian cities. On the
   contrary, he devoted himself, with considerable success, to
   the regaining of their confidence and good-will, as against
   the papacy, with which his relations were not improved. In
   southern Italy, he acquired an important footing by the
   marriage of his son Henry (already crowned King of Rome, as
   Henry VI.), to Constance, the sole heiress of the Norman
   kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Soon after which he went
   crusading to the Holy Land, and perished in Asia Minor (A. D.
   1190). His son and successor, Henry VI., who survived him but
   seven years, was occupied so much in securing the Kingdom of
   the Two Sicilies, already fallen to his wife (1194) by the
   death of the last of the Norman kings, that he had little time
   to trouble the peace of Lombardy or Germany. He was one of the
   meanest of kings, faithless and cold-blooded,—brutal to the
   Normans of the Sicilies and contemptible in his treatment of
   the English King Richard, when his vassal of Austria made a
   chance captive of the lion-hearted prince. He died in 1197,
   leaving as his heir a son but four years old—the Frederick
   II. of later years. There was war at once. Two rival kings
   were elected in Germany, by the two factions, Guelf and
   Ghibelline. The next year, one of them, Philip I., the
   Ghibelline, a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, was
   assassinated; the other, Otho IV., a son of Henry the Lion,
   was recognized by his opponents, and went to Rome to claim the
   imperial crown. He received it, but soon quarrelled, as all
   his predecessors had done, with the pope (the great pope
   Innocent III. being now on the throne), and, Guelf as he was,
   began to put himself in alliance with the Ghibellines of
   Italy. Meantime, the boy Frederick had become king of the Two
   Sicilies by the death of his mother, and Pope Innocent was his
   guardian. He was now brought forward by the latter as a
   claimant of the Germanic crown, against Otho, and was sent
   into Germany to maintain his claim. The civil war which
   followed was practically ended by the battle of Bouvines (July
   27, 1214—see BOUVINES) in which Otho's cause was lost. Four
   years after, the latter died, and Frederick reigned in
   Germany, Italy and the Two Sicilies, without a rival, holding
   the three separate crowns for five years before he received
   the imperial crown, in 1220. Meantime Innocent III. died, and
   Frederick became involved, even more bitterly than his father
   or his grandfather had been, in quarrels with the succeeding
   popes. He was a man far beyond his age in intellectual
   independence (see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268) and freedom from
   superstitious servility to the priesthood. His tastes were
   cultivated, his accomplishments were many. He welcomed the
   refinements which Europe at that time could borrow from the
   Saracens, and his court was one of gaiety and splendor. His
   papal enemies execrated him as a heretic, a blasphemer and an
   "apocalyptic beast." His greatest original offenses had grown
   out of two promises which he made in his youth:

   1. To lead a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem,—which he
   was slow in fulfilling;

   2. To resign his Italian possessions to his son, retaining
   only the sovereignty of Germany for himself,—which promise he
   did not fulfil at all.

   The war of the Church against him was implacable, and he was
   under its ban when he died. The pope even pursued him with
   maledictions when he went, at last, upon his crusade, in 1228,
   and when he did, by negotiations, free Jerusalem for a time
   from the Moslems (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229). He was
   involved, moreover, in conflicts with the Lombard cities (see
   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE) which the papacy
   encouraged and stimulated, and, in 1236, he won a great
   victory over the League, at Cortenuova, capturing the famous
   "Carroccio" of the Milanese and sending it as a gift to the
   Roman Senate. But, attempting to use his victory too
   inflexibly, he lost the fruits of it, and all his later years
   were years of trouble and disastrous war—disastrous to Italy
   and to himself. He died on the 13th of December 1250. "Out of
   the long array of the Germanic successors of Charles, he
   [Frederick II.] is, with Otto III., the only one who comes
   before us with a genius and a frame of character that are not
   those of a Northern or a Teuton. There dwelt in him, it is
   true, all the energy and knightly valour of his father Henry
   and his grandfather Barbarossa. But along with these, and
   changing their direction, were other gifts, inherited perhaps
   from his Italian mother and fostered by his education among
   the orange-groves of Palermo—a love of luxury and beauty, an
   intellect refined, subtle, philosophical. Through the mist of
   calumny and fable it is but dimly that the truth of the man
   can be discerned, and the outlines that appear serve to
   quicken rather than appease the curiosity with which we regard
   one of the most extraordinary personages in history. A
   sensualist, yet also a warrior and a politician; a profound
   lawgiver and an impassioned poet; in his youth fired by
   crusading fervour, in later life persecuting heretics while
   himself accused of blasphemy and unbelief; of winning manners
   and ardently beloved by his followers, but with the stain of
   more than one cruel deed upon his name, he was the marvel of
   his own generation, and succeeding ages looked back with awe,
   not unmingled with pity, upon the inscrutable figure of the
   last Emperor who had braved all the terrors of the Church and
   died beneath her ban, the last who had ruled from the sands of
   the ocean to the shores of the Sicilian sea. But while they
   pitied they condemned. The undying hatred of the Papacy threw
   round his memory a lurid light; him and him alone of all the
   imperial line, Dante, the worshipper of the Empire, must
   perforce deliver to the flames of hell."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

   "The Emperor Frederick was a poet who could not only celebrate
   the charms of his sovereign lady, 'the flower of all flowers,
   the rose of May,' but could also exhibit his appreciation for
   the beauties of nature. … Frederick also delighted in
   sculpture, painting, and architecture. … Under his fostering
   influence every branch of learning was starting into life
   after the slumber of ages. Frederick's age can only be
   compared to that glorious era of the Renaissance, when the sun
   of learning, no longer shorn of his beams, poured a flood of
   light over the dark places of Europe. Frederick was not only
   distinguished for his love of polite literature, but also for
   his ardour in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. He was
   himself an author on medical subjects.
{1815}
   He was a great patron of natural history. He used his friendly
   relations with eastern kings to form a collection of animals
   not often seen in Europe—the elephant, camel, giraffe, and
   camelopard. He also wrote a treatise on Hawking, which is
   still cited with respect. He classifies birds, and treats
   generally of their habits. … But poetry and science were
   very far from occupying all the thoughts of this distinguished
   monarch. His great concern was the internal regulation of the
   kingdom committed to his charge. His code in Sicily and Naples
   was framed with the special view of securing equal rights to
   all classes of his subjects, and of delivering them from the
   yoke of the feudal oppressor. He stripped the nobles and
   prelates of their jurisdiction in criminal cases. He also
   decreed that any count or baron, carrying on war on his own
   account, should lose his head and his goods. These were
   amazing strides in the right direction, but the former was
   quite unprecedented in feudal kingdoms. Many justiciaries were
   appointed throughout the kingdom. No one might hold this
   office without the authorisation of the crown. He strove to
   make his officials as righteous as he was himself. He himself
   came before his courts. So great was his love of justice, that
   he would rather lose his cause than win it if he were in the
   wrong. No advocates were allowed to practise without an
   examination by the judicial bench. They were obliged to take
   an oath that they would allege nothing against their
   conscience. The court furnished widows, orphans, and the poor
   with champions free of expense. The law, by which it was
   guided, endeavoured to secure an even-handed administration of
   justice."

      _A. B. Pennington,
      The Emperor Frederick II.
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series,
      volume 1)._

   Although arbitrary and despotic in temper, the political
   intelligence of Frederick led him to practical ideas of
   government which were extraordinarily liberal for his age. In
   his Sicilian kingdom "the towns were shorn to a great extent
   of their local privileges, but were taught to unite their
   strength for the common good. Twice, at least, in the course
   of his reign, in 1232 and in 1240, Frederick summoned their
   deputies to a conference or Parliament, 'for the weal of the
   Kingdom and the general advantage of the State.' Forty-seven
   cities, all belonging to the Imperial domain, sent two
   deputies each to the Assembly convoked, which must not be
   confounded with the Solemn Courts held by the Sovereign and
   his Barons for the purpose Of revising charters, enacting
   Constitutions, and regulating the government. We should be
   mistaken in supposing that the Sicilian Parliament enjoyed
   much of the power implied by the name. There is no trace of
   any clamour against grievances, of any complaints against
   officials, or of any refusal to grant supplies. The only
   function of the deputies summoned seems to have been the
   assessing of the public burdens. The Emperor demanded a
   certain sum of money, and the deputies, meekly complying,
   regulated the ways and means of raising it. 'Send your
   messengers,' thus runs the writ, 'to see the Serenity of our
   face on your behalf, and to bring you back our will.' Later in
   the century, the Assembly acquired greater authority. It is
   just possible that Simon de Montfort, who is known to have
   visited the Imperial Court, may have borrowed his famous
   improvement on the old English constitution from an Apulian
   source; the gathering of the Commons at Foggia certainly
   preceded their first meeting at Westminster by thirty years.
   Other countries besides our own were indebted to Frederick for
   a better mode of legislation. Shortly after his death, many of
   his innovations were borrowed by his cousin Alonzo the Wise,
   and were inserted in Las Siete Partidas, the new Code of
   Castile. The ideas of the Suabian Emperor were evidently the
   model followed by St. Louis and his successors; in France, as
   well as in Southern Italy, the lawyer was feeling his way
   towards the enjoyment of the power wielded of old by the
   knight and the churchman; Philip the Fair was able to carry
   out the projects which Frederick had merely been able to
   sketch. The world made rapid strides between 1230 and 1300.
   The Northern half of Italy, distracted by endless struggles,
   was not insensible to the improvements introduced into the
   South by her mighty son. But in the North two fatal obstacles
   existed, the Papal power and the municipal spirit of the
   various States, which marred all Frederick's efforts in behalf
   of Italian unity." Frederick's court was the most brilliant
   and refined in Europe. Mr. Kington, his historian, introduces
   us to one of the Emperor's banquets, in the following
   description: "A great variety of strangers meet at the
   banqueting hour. Ambassadors from the Greek Monarch arrive
   with a present of falcons. Some clerical visitors from Germany
   are astounded to find themselves seated close to the turbaned
   men of the East, and shudder on hearing that these are envoys
   from the Sultan of Cairo and the Old Man of the Mountain. The
   honest Germans whisper among themselves some remarks on the
   late end of the Duke of Bavaria, who was stabbed at Kelheim by
   a man, suspected to be an assassin, employed by the mysterious
   Old Man on Frederick's behalf. The Emperor himself eats and
   drinks very little. He is the very model of a host. … The
   Emperor, it must be allowed, is rather loose in his talk.
   Speaking of his late Crusade, he remarks: 'If the God of the
   Jews had seen my Kingdom, the Terra di Lavoro, Calabria,
   Sicily, and Apulia, he would not have so often praised that
   land which he promised to the Jews and bestowed upon them.'
   The Bishops treasure up this unlucky speech, which will one
   day be noised abroad all over Italy. When the meal is over,
   the company are amused by the feats of some of the Almehs,
   brought from the East. Two young Arab girls of rare beauty
   place themselves each upon two balls in the middle of the flat
   pavement. On these they move backwards and forwards, singing
   and beating time with cymbals and castanets, while throwing
   themselves into intricate postures. Games and musical
   instruments, procured for the Empress, form part of the
   entertainment. We hear moreover of a Saracen dancer from
   Aquitaine. Such sports are relished by the guests quite as
   much as the Greek wine and the viands prepared by Berard the
   Court cook, who is famous for his scapece; this dish,
   consisting of fish boiled in salt water and sprinkled with
   saffron, popular to this day in the province of Lecce, has
   been derived from Apicius. … The Emperor now shows his
   guests the wild beasts, which he has brought from Africa and
   the East. There is the huge elephant, soon to be sent to
   Cremona, the bearer of the Imperial banner, guarded by a troop
   of Saracens.
{1816}
   There is the female camelopard, called Seraph by the Arabs and
   Italians. Next come the camels and dromedaries which carry the
   Emperor's treasures when he is on the march. Lions, leopards,
   panthers, and rare birds form part of the collection, and are
   tended by Saracen keepers. Frederick perhaps wishes to show
   his friends some sport in the Apulian plains; he has hawks of
   all breeds, each of which has its name; but what most
   astonishes strangers is his method of bringing down the deer.
   The cheetahs, or hunting leopards of the East, are mounted on
   horseback behind their keepers; these animals, as the Emperor
   says, 'know how to ride.' He is a strict preserver of game; he
   gives orders that the wolves and foxes, which prey upon the
   small animals in his warren at Melazzo, be destroyed by means
   of a poison called wolf's powder. He has many parks and
   fishponds, to which he contrives to attend, even in the midst
   of Lombard wars. He directs the plantation of woods, and when
   a storm blows down his trees, the timber is to be sold at
   Naples. … The treasures, with which Frederick dazzles the
   eyes of his visitors, rival those of Solomon. The Sultan of
   Egypt has given his Christian brother a tent of wonderful
   workmanship, displaying the movements of the sun and moon, and
   telling the hours of the day and night. This prodigy, valued
   at 20,000 marks, is kept at Venosa. There is also a throne of
   gold, decked with pearls and precious stones, doomed to become
   the prey of Charles of Anjou and Pope Clement. There are
   purple robes embroidered with gold, silks from Tripoli, and
   the choicest works of the Eastern loom. Frederick charms the
   ears of his guests with melodies played on silver trumpets by
   black slaves, whom he has had trained. He himself knows how to
   sing. Travellers, jesters, poets, philosophers, knights,
   lawyers, all find a hearty welcome at the Apulian Court; if
   they are natives of the Kingdom they address its Lord in the
   customary second person singular, 'Tu, Messer.' He can well
   appreciate the pretensions of each guest, since he is able to
   converse with all his many subjects, each in his own tongue.
   The Arab from Palestine, the Greek from Calabria, the Italian
   from Tuscany, the Frenchman from Lorraine, the German from
   Thuringia, find that Cæsar understands them all. With Latin,
   of course, he is familiar. Very different is Frederick from
   his Northern grandsire, who could speak nothing but German and
   very bad Latin. Troubadour, Crusader, Lawgiver; German by
   blood, Italian by birth, Arab by training; the pupil, the
   tyrant, the victim of Rome; accused by the world of being by
   turns a Catholic persecutor, a Mohammedan convert, an Infidel
   freethinker; such is Frederick the Second. His character has
   been sketched for us by two men of opposite politics,
   Salimbene the Guelf and Jamsilla the Ghibelline, both of whom
   knew him well. Each does justice to the wonderful genius of
   the Emperor, and to the rapid development of the arts and
   commerce under his fostering care. But all is not fair,
   whatever appearances may be. Every generation of the
   Hohenstaufen Kaisers seemed to add a vice to the shame of
   their house. Cruelty is the one dark stain in the character of
   Barbarossa; cruelty and treachery mar the soaring genius of
   Henry the Sixth; cruelty, treachery, and lewdness are the
   three blots that can never be wiped away from the memory of
   Frederick the Second. He has painted his likeness with his own
   hand. His Registers with their varied entries throw more light
   upon his nature than any panegyrics or diatribes can do. One
   example will be enough. If he wishes to get an impregnable
   castle into his hands, he thus writes to his
   general:—'Pretend some business, and warily call the
   Castellan to you; seize on him if you can, and keep him till
   he cause the castle to be surrendered to you.' … Frederick's
   cruelty is indisputable. His leaden copes, which weighed down
   the victims of his wrath until death came to the rescue, were
   long the talk of Italy and are mentioned by Dante."

      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick the Second, Emperor of the Romans,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "After the death of Frederick II., an interval of twenty-three
   years passed without the appointment of a king of the Romans
   [the Great Interregnum—see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], and an
   interval of sixty years without the recognition of an emperor
   in Italy." Frederick's son Conrad, whom he had caused to be
   crowned, was driven out of Germany and died in 1254. Another
   son, Manfred, acquired the crown of Sicily and reigned for a
   time; but the unrelenting pope persuaded Charles of Anjou to
   make a conquest of the kingdom, and Manfred was slain in
   battle (A. D. 1266). Conrad's young son, Conradin, then
   attempted to recover the Sicilian throne, but was defeated,
   taken prisoner, and perished on the scaffold (1268). He was
   the last of the Hohenstaufen.

      _O. Browning,
      Guelfs and Ghibellines,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 11-13._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Emperor Frederick the Second
      (Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10)._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 4 (volumes 3-4)._

ITALY: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the
   States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ITALY: 13th Century.
   Political conditions which prepared the way for the despots.

   "The struggle between the Popes and the Hohenstaufen left
   Italy in a political condition which differed essentially from
   that of the other countries of the West. While in France,
   Spain, and England the feudal system was so organised that, at
   the close of its existence, it was naturally transformed into
   a unified monarchy, and while in Germany it helped to
   maintain, at least outwardly, the unity of the empire, Italy
   had shaken it off almost entirely. The Emperors of the
   fourteenth century, even in the most favourable case, were no
   longer received and respected as feudal lords, but as possible
   leaders and supporters of powers already in existence; while
   the Papacy, with its creatures and allies, was strong enough
   to hinder national unity in the future, not strong enough
   itself to bring about that unity. Between the two lay a
   multitude of political units—republics and despots—in part
   of long standing, in part of recent origin, whose existence
   was founded simply on their power to maintain it. In them for
   the first time we detect the modern political spirit of
   Europe, surrendered freely to its own instincts, often
   displaying the worst features of an unbridled egoism,
   outraging every right, and killing every germ of a healthier
   culture.
{1817}
   But, wherever this vicious tendency is overcome or in any way
   compensated, a new fact appears in history—the state as the
   outcome of reflection and calculation, the state as a work of
   art. This new life displays itself in a hundred forms, both in
   the republican and in the despotic states, and determines
   their inward constitution, no less than their foreign policy.
   … The internal condition of the despotically governed states
   had a memorable counterpart in the Norman Empire of Lower
   Italy and Sicily, after its transformation by the Emperor
   Frederick II. Bred amid treason and peril in the neighbourhood
   of the Saracens, Frederick, the first ruler of the modern type
   who sat upon a throne, had early accustomed himself, both in
   criticism and action, to a thoroughly objective treatment of
   affairs. His acquaintance with the internal condition and
   administration of the Saracenic states was close and intimate;
   and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the
   Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring
   into the field all the resources at his command. Frederick's
   measures (especially after the year 1231) are aimed at the
   complete destruction of the feudal state, at the
   transformation of the people into a multitude destitute of
   will and of the means of resistance, but profitable in the
   utmost degree to the exchequer. He centralised, in a manner
   hitherto unknown in the West, the whole judicial and political
   administration by establishing the right of appeal from the
   feudal courts, which he did not, however, abolish, to the
   imperial judges. No office was henceforth to be filled by
   popular election, under penalty of the devastation of the
   offending district and of the enslavement of its inhabitants.
   Excise duties were introduced; the taxes, based on a
   comprehensive assessment, and distributed in accordance with
   Mohammedan usages, were collected by those cruel and vexatious
   methods without which, it is true, it is impossible to obtain
   any money from Orientals. Here, in short, we find, not a
   people, but simply a disciplined multitude of subjects. …
   The internal police, and the kernel of the army for foreign
   service, was composed of Saracens who had been brought over
   from Sicily to Nocera and Luceria—men who were deaf to the
   cry of misery and careless of the ban of the Church. At a
   later period the subjects, by whom the use of weapons had long
   been forgotten, were passive witnesses of the fall of Manfred
   and of the seizure of the government by Charles of Anjou; the
   latter continued to use the system which he found already at
   work. At the side of the centralising Emperor appeared an
   usurper of the most peculiar kind: his vicar and son-in-law,
   Ezzelino da Romano. … The conquests and usurpations which
   had hitherto taken place in the Middle Ages rested on real or
   pretended inheritance and other such claims, or else were
   effected against unbelievers and excommunicated persons. Here
   for the first time the attempt was openly made to found a
   throne by wholesale murder and endless barbarities, by the
   adoption, in short, of any means with a view to nothing but
   the end pursued. None of his successors, not even Cæsar
   Borgia, rivalled the colossal guilt of Ezzelino; but the
   example once set was not forgotten. … Immediately after the
   fall of Frederick and Ezzelino, a crowd of tyrants appeared
   upon the scene. The struggle between Guelph and Ghibelline was
   their opportunity. They came forward in general as Ghibelline
   leaders, but at times and under conditions so various, that it
   is impossible not to recognise in the fact a law of supreme
   and universal necessity."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 1, chapter 1, (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning, at Florence, the causes and the meaning of the
   strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

   "In the year 1215 it chanced that a quarrel occurred at a
   festival between some young nobles of Florence. It was an
   event of as frivolous, and apparently unimportant, a character
   as thousands of other such broils; but this obscure quarrel
   has been treated by the whole body of Florentine historians as
   the origin and starting point of that series of civil wars
   which shaped the entire future fortunes of the community, and
   shook to its centre the whole fabric of society throughout
   central Italy. The story of it has become memorable therefore
   in Florentine annals, and has been rendered famous not only by
   the writers of history, but by many generations of poets,
   painters, novelists, and sculptors." Briefly sketched, the
   story is this: A handsome youth of the Buondelmonti family,
   mixing in a quarrel at the festival alluded to, struck one
   Oddo Arringhi dei Fifanti with his poniard. Common friends of
   the two brought about a reconciliation, by means of an
   arrangement of marriage between Buondelmonte and a niece of
   the injured man. But the lady was plain, and Buondelmonte,
   falling madly in love with another, more charming, whom evil
   chance and a scheming mother threw temptingly in his way, did
   not scruple to break his engagement, and to do it with insult.
   He wedded his new love, who was of the Donati family, on
   Easter Day, and on that same day he was slain by the Amidei,
   whose house he had so grossly affronted. "The assassins
   retired to their fortress houses, and left the bridal party to
   form itself as it might into a funeral procession. 'Great was
   the uproar in the city. He was placed on a bier; and his wife
   took her station on the bier also, and held his head in her
   lap, violently weeping; and in that manner they carried him
   through the whole of the city; and on that day began the ruin
   of Florence.' The last phrase of the above citation marks the
   significance which the Tuscan historians have attributed to
   this incident, and the important place that has always been
   assigned to it in Florentine history. We are told by all the
   earliest historians, especially by Malispini, in whose
   childhood these events must have happened, and whom Villani
   copies almost word for word, that from this quarrel began the
   great, fatal, and world-famous division of Florence into the
   parties of Guelph and Ghibelline. Dante goes so far as to
   consider the conduct of Buondelmonte in this affair so
   entirely the cause of the evils that arose from the Guelph and
   Ghibelline wars, that, had that cause not existed, no such
   misfortunes would have arisen. … Yet the historians admit
   that the party names of Guelph and Ghibelline were known in
   Florence long before; but they say that not till then did the
   city divide itself into two hostile camps under those rallying
   cries. It is curiously clear, from the accounts of Malispini
   and Villani, that, as usual in such matters, the Florentines
   had but a very hazy notion as to the meaning and origin of the
   two names [see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and GERMANY: A. D.
   1138-1268], for the sake of which they were prepared to cut
   each other's throats.
{1818}
   Any name or watchword is good enough for a party rallying cry,
   when once passions have been connected with it; but the
   Florentines understood that Ghibelline meant attachment to the
   Empire in opposition to the Church, and Guelph attachment to
   the Church in opposition to the Empire. … But the quarrel of
   Guelph with Ghibelline in Florence was the expression of a
   still wider spread and more perennial conflict. … The
   Ghibellines were the old Imperial nobles, who, whether more
   anciently or more recently incorporated into the body of
   Florentine citizens, formed the aristocracy of the social
   body, and were naturally Imperialist in their sympathies.
   These Ghibellines were the high Tories of the Florentine
   community. The body of the people were Guelphs, naming
   themselves after the party professing attachment to the Church
   only because the Papacy was in opposition to the Empire. The
   Guelphs were the Whigs of Florence. The Radicals appeared on
   the scene in due time and normal sequence." From Florence, as
   its center, the strife of the two factions spread throughout
   Italy. "Ghibellinism was nearly universal in the north of
   Italy, divided among a number of more or less well known great
   families, of whom the principal were the Visconti at Milan,
   and the Della Scala at Verona. Naples and the States of the
   Church were Guelph; the former, as need hardly be suggested,
   from political circumstances, from opposition to the Empire,
   and from connection, rather than from principle. Tuscany and
   the whole of Central Italy were divided between the two,
   although the real strength and stronghold of genuine Guelphism
   was there. Without Florence, there would have been no Guelph
   party. Had those stout sandalled and leather-jerkined
   Florentine burghers of the 13th century not undertaken and
   persevered in that crusade against the feudal nobles and the
   Ghibelline principle, which … was the leading occupation and
   idea of the Commonwealth during all that century, Ghibellinism
   and Imperialism would have long since possessed and ruled
   Italy from the Alps to the toe of the boot."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 1, chapter 3,
      and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "One party called themselves the Emperor's liegemen, and their
   watchword was authority and law; the other side were the
   liegemen of Holy Church, and their cry was liberty; and the
   distinction as a broad one is true. But a democracy would
   become Ghibelline, without scruple, if its neighbour town was
   Guelf; and among the Guelf liegemen of the Church and liberty,
   the pride of blood and love of power were not a whit inferior
   to that of their opponents. Yet … it is not impossible to
   trace in the two factions differences of temper, of moral and
   political inclinations, which, though visible only on a large
   scale and in the mass, were quite sufficient to give meaning
   and reality to their mutual opposition. … The Ghibellines as
   a body reflected the worldliness, the license, the irreligion,
   the reckless selfishness, the daring insolence, and at the
   same time the gaiety and pomp, the princely magnificence and
   generosity and largeness of mind of the House of Swabia [the
   Hohenstaufen]; they were the men of the court and camp. …
   The Guelfs, on the other hand, were the party of the middle
   classes; they rose out of and held to the people; they were
   strong by their compactness, their organisation in cities,
   their commercial relations and interests, their command of
   money. Further, they were professedly the party of strictness
   and religion. … The genuine Guelf spirit was austere,
   frugal, independent, earnest, religious; fond of its home and
   Church, and of those celebrations which bound together Church
   and home; … in its higher form intolerant of evil, but
   intolerant always of whatever displeased it. Yet there was a
   grave and noble manliness about it which long kept it alive in
   Florence."

      _R. W. Church,
      Dante and other Essays,
      pages 15-18._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.

ITALY: A. D. 1236-1259.
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the Veronese or Trevisan
   Marches, and the crusade against him.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

ITALY: A. D. 1248-1278.
   The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines in
   Tuscany.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1250-1268.
   Invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies by
   Charles of Anjou, on the invitation of the Pope.

   "The death of the Emperor Frederic II., in 1250, had been
   followed in less than four years by that of his son and
   successor Conrad IV., from whose son Conradin, at that time an
   infant, the Crown of the Two Sicilies was usurped by his uncle
   Manfred, a natural child of the deceased Frederic. The hatred
   of the See of Rome, notwithstanding the frequent changes which
   had occurred in the Papal Chair, still pursued the Line of
   Hohenstauffen, even in this illegitimate branch, and it was
   transmitted as an hereditary possession from Innocent IV.
   through Alexander IV. and Urban IV., to Clement IV.
   Interference in Germany itself was forbidden by the
   independence of the Electoral Princes: and when it was found
   impossible to obtain the nomination of an Emperor decidedly in
   the Guelph interest, Alexander contented himself by
   endeavouring to separate the Throne of the Two Sicilies from
   that of Germany, and to establish upon the former a Feudatory,
   and therefore a Champion, of the Church. Various alliances for
   this purpose were projected by Alexander, and by his
   successors who adopted a similar policy; and the Crown, which
   was in truth to be conquered from Manfred, was offered as an
   investiture which Rome had a full right to bestow." After long
   negotiations with Henry III. of England, who coveted the
   Sicilian prize for his second son, Edmund, and who paid large
   sums to the papal treasury by way of earnest money, but who
   showed little ability to oust the possessor, Pope Urban, at
   length, closed a bargain with that ambitious speculator in
   royal claims and titles, Charles of Anjou, brother of St.
   Louis, king of France. The honesty of Louis was somewhat
   troubled by the unscrupulous transaction; but his conscience
   submitted itself to the instructions of the Holy Father, and
   he permitted his brother to embark in the evil enterprise.
   "Charles, accordingly, having first accepted the Senator-ship
   of Rome, with which high magistracy he was invested by her
   citizens, negotiated with the Holy See, most ably and much to
   his advantage, for the loftier dignity of Kingship. In little
   more than a month after he had received his Crown from the
   hands of Clement IV., who had become Pope, he totally defeated
   and killed his opponent Manfred, in the battle of Grandella
   [near Benevento, February, 1266].
{1819}
   Conradin, who had now arrived at years of discretion, was
   still his rival; but the capture of the young Prince at
   Tagliacozzo [1268], and his speedy committal to the
   executioner, confirmed Charles of Anjou in his Kingdom, at the
   everlasting ex-pense of his good name. Few incidents in
   History are more calculated to awaken just indignation than
   the untimely end of the brave, wronged, and gallant Conradin.
   Charles of Anjou thus founded the first dynasty of his House
   which reigned over the Sicilies. The pretensions which Aragon
   afterwards advanced to the Crown of that Kingdom rested on a
   marriage between Pedro, the eldest son of King James, and
   Constance, a daughter of Manfred."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 4, chapter 8._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 11, chapter 3 (volume 5)._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 5 (volume 4)._

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1293.
   Development of the popular Constitution of the Florentine
   Commonwealth.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.
   The Age of the Despots.
   The rise of Principalities.

   "From the death of Frederick the Second [A. D. 1250] … all
   practical power of an imperial kingdom in Italy may be said to
   have passed away. Presently begins the gradual change of the
   commonwealths into tyrannies, and the grouping together of
   many of them into larger states. We also see the beginning of
   more definite claims of temporal dominion on behalf of the
   Popes. In the course of the 300 years between Frederick the
   Second and Charles the Fifth, these processes gradually
   changed the face of the Italian kingdom. It became in the end
   a collection of principalities, broken only by the survival of
   a few oligarchic commonwealths and by the anomalous dominion
   of Venice on the mainland. Between Frederick the Second and
   Charles the Fifth, we may look on the Empire as practically in
   abeyance in Italy. The coming of an Emperor always caused a
   great stir for the time, but it was only for the time. After
   the grant of Rudolf of Habsburg to the Popes, a distinction
   was drawn between Imperial and papal territory in Italy. While
   certain princes and commonwealths still acknowledged at least
   the nominal superiority of the Emperor, others were now held
   to stand in the same relation of vassalage to the Pope."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

   "During the 14th and 15th centuries we find, roughly speaking,
   six sorts of despots in Italian cities. Of these the First
   class, which is a very small one, had a dynastic or hereditary
   right accruing from long seignorial possession, of their
   several districts. The most eminent are the houses of
   Montferrat and Savoy, the Marquises of Ferrara, the Princes of
   Urbino. … The Second class comprise those nobles who
   obtained the title of Vicars of the Empire, and built an
   illegal power upon the basis of imperial right in Lombardy. Of
   these, the Della Scala and Visconti families are illustrious
   instances. … The Third class is important. Nobles charged
   with military or judicial power, as Capitani or Podestas, by
   the free burghs, used their authority to enslave the cities
   they were chosen to administer. It was thus that almost all
   the numerous tyrants of Lombardy, Carraresi at Padua, Gonzaghi
   at Mantua, Rossi and Correggi at Parma, Torrensi and Visconti
   at Milan, Scotti at Piacenza, and so forth, erected their
   despotic dynasties. … In the Fourth class we find the
   principle of force still more openly at work. To it may be
   assigned those Condottieri who made a prey of cities at their
   pleasure. The illustrious Uguccione della Faggiuola, who
   neglected to follow up his victory over the Guelfs at Monte
   Catini, in order that he might cement his power in Lucca and
   Pisa, is an early instance of this kind of tyrant. His
   successor, Castruccio Castracane, the hero of Machiavelli's
   romance, is another. But it was not until the first half of
   the 15th century that professional Condottieri became powerful
   enough to found such kingdoms as that, for example, of
   Francesco Sforza at Milan. The Fifth class includes the
   nephews or sons of Popes. The Riario principality of Forli,
   the Della Rovere of Urbino, the Borgia of Romagna, the Farnese
   of Parma, form a distinct species of despotisms; but all these
   are of a comparatively late origin. Until the papacy of Sixtus
   IV. and Innocent VIII. the Popes had not bethought them of
   providing in this way for their relatives. … There remains
   the Sixth and last class of despots to be mentioned. This
   again is large and of the first importance. Citizens of
   eminence, like the Medici at Florence, the Bentivogli at
   Bologna, the Baglioni of Perugia, the Gambacorti of Pisa, like
   Pandolfo Petrucci in Siena (1502), Romeo Pepoli, the usurer of
   Bologna (1323), the plebeian Alticlinio and Agolanti of Padua
   (1313), acquired more than their due weight in the conduct of
   affairs, and gradually tended to tyranny. In most of these
   cases great wealth was the original source of despotic
   ascendancy. It was not uncommon to buy cities together with
   their Signory. … But personal qualities and nobility of
   blood might also produce despots of the Sixth class."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1261-1264.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1273-1291.
   Indifference of Rodolph of Hapsburg to his Italian dominions.
   His neglect to claim the imperial crown.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

ITALY: A. D. 1277-1447.
   Tyranny of the Visconti at Milan.
   Their domination in Lombardy and their fall.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

ITALY: A. D. 1282-1293.
   War between Genoa and Pisa.
   Battle of Meloria.
   War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Sicilian Vespers.
   Severance of the Two Sicilies.
   End of the House of Anjou in the insular kingdom.

   "Peter, King of Aragon, had married Constance, the daughter of
   Manfred, and laid claim to the kingdom of Sicily in her right.
   He sent for help to Michael Palaiologos, the restorer of the
   Eastern Empire. The Emperor agreed to his proposals, for his
   Empire was threatened by Charles of Anjou. These negotiations
   were, it is said, carried on through Giovanni di Procida, a
   Sicilian exile, who, as the story goes, had suffered cruel
   wrongs from the French. Charles knew something of the plans of
   the allies, and both parties were preparing for war, but
   affairs were brought to a crisis by a chance occurrence.
{1820}
   On March 30, 1282, a brutal insult was offered by a French
   soldier to a bride in the presence of her friends and
   neighbours outside the walls of Palermo, and the smothered
   hatred of the people broke out into open violence. The cry
   'Death to the French' was raised, and all who belonged to that
   nation in Palermo were slain without mercy. This massacre,
   which is called 'The Sicilian Vespers,' spread through the
   whole island; the yoke of the oppressor was broken and the
   land was delivered. Charles laid siege to Messina, but he was
   forced to retire by Peter of Aragon, who landed and was
   received as King. Pope Martin in vain excommunicated the
   rebels and their allies, and, in 1284, Charles received a
   great blow, for his son was defeated and taken prisoner by
   Roger of Loria, the Admiral of the Catalan fleet. Charles of
   Anjou died in 1286, and two years later his son, also called
   Charles, ransomed himself from prison."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4._

   Charles of Anjou "died of grief, leaving his son, the prince
   of Salerno, a prisoner, and Martin followed him, before he
   could proclaim a general crusade against the invader of the
   apostolic fief. Pedro, having enjoyed his two crowns to the
   day of his death, left them to his sons, Alphonso and James
   respectively, and both were excommunicated by Honorius IV. for
   their accession. The prince of Salerno, obtaining his release
   by the mediation of Edward of England, was absolved by
   Nicholas IV. from the conditions to which he had sworn, and
   crowned at Rome king of Apulia (i. e., Naples) and Sicily, A.
   D. 1289. His hopes of regaining the island were constantly
   disappointed. James, having succeeded to the crown of Arragon
   by the death of Alphonso, was persuaded to resign Sicily to
   Charles on condition of receiving his daughter in marriage,
   with an ample dowry. Boniface VIII. also graciously gave him
   leave to conquer the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, from the
   republics of Pisa and Genoa. The Sicilians, however, declining
   to be so bartered, bestowed their crown on James's brother
   Frederic [1295]; and though James contributed his fleet to
   reduce him, he retained the island throne [1300], while
   Charles and the pope were obliged to rest content with the
   continental kingdom. Their only satisfaction was to persist in
   calling Naples by the name of Sicily, and to stigmatise their
   rival as king of 'Trinacria.'"

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      page 240._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 4._

ITALY: A. D. 1294-1299.
   War between Venice and Genoa.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1297-1319.
   The perfected aristocratic Constitution of Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

ITALY: A. D. 1300-1313.
   New factions of Florence and Tuscany.
   Bianchi and Neri.

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

ITALY: 14th Century.
   The Renaissance in its beginning.

   "It was not the revival of antiquity alone, but its union with
   the genius of the Italian people, which achieved the conquest
   of the Western world. … The civilisation of Greece and Rome,
   which, ever since the fourteenth century, obtained so powerful
   a hold on Italian life, as the source and basis of culture, as
   the object and ideal of existence, partly also as an avowed
   reaction against preceding tendencies—this civilisation had
   long been exerting a partial influence on mediæval Europe,
   even beyond the boundaries of Italy. The culture of which
   Charles the Great was a representative was, in face of the
   barbarism of the seventh and eighth centuries, essentially a
   Renaissance, and could appear under no other form. … But the
   resuscitation of antiquity took a different form in Italy from
   that which it assumed in the North. The wave of barbarism had
   scarcely gone by before the people, in whom the former life
   was but half effaced, showed a consciousness of its past and a
   wish to reproduce it. Elsewhere in Europe men deliberately and
   with reflection borrowed this or the other element of
   classical civilisation; in Italy the sympathies both of the
   learned and of the people were naturally engaged on the side
   of antiquity as a whole, which stood to them as a symbol of
   past greatness. The Latin language, too, was easy to an
   Italian, and the numerous monuments and documents in which the
   country abounded facilitated a return to the past. With this
   tendency other elements—the popular character which time had
   now greatly modified, the political institutions imported by
   the Lombards from Germany, chivalry and other northern forms
   of civilisation, and the influence of religion and the
   Church—combined to produce the modern Italian spirit, which
   was destined to serve as a model and ideal for the whole
   western world. How antiquity began to work in plastic art, as
   soon as the flood of barbarism had subsided, is clearly shown
   in the Tuscan buildings of the twelfth and in the sculptures
   of the thirteenth centuries. … But the great and general
   enthusiasm of the Italians for classical antiquity did not
   display itself before the fourteenth century. For this a
   development of civic life was required, which took place only
   in Italy, and there not till then. It was needful that noble
   and burgher should first learn to dwell together on equal
   terms, and that a social world should arise which felt the
   want of culture, and had the leisure and the means to obtain
   it. But culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic
   bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and without help
   find its way to the understanding of the physical and
   intellectual world. It needed a guide, and found one in the
   ancient civilisation, with its wealth of truth and knowledge
   in every spiritual interest. Both the form and the substance
   of this civilisation were adopted with admiring gratitude; it
   became the chief part of the culture of the age."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
      chapter 1._

      See RENAISSANCE.

ITALY: A. D. 1305-1309.
   Removal of the Papal Court to Lyons and then to Avignon.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Visitation of the Emperor Henry VII.
   Hostility of Florence and siege of the city.
   Repulse from Rome.
   The Emperor's death.

   "No Emperor had come into Italy since the death of Frederic
   II. [1250]. Neither Rudolf nor his two successors [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308] had been crowned Emperor, but on the
   death of Albert of Austria, the King of the Romans, in 1308,
   the electors chose Henry, Count of Luxemburg [Henry VII.]. In
   1310 he entered Italy with a small German army. Unlike most of
   these Imperial expeditions, this was approved of by the Pope.
{1821}
   The French King Philip IV. was really master of Pope Clement
   V., who did not live in Italy, but sometimes within the French
   kingdom, or in the English territory of Bordeaux, or in
   Avignon, a city of the Empire. But Clement did not like
   bearing the French yoke, and was fearful lest some one of
   greater talents than Charles of Valois should make an attempt
   on Italy, and make it impossible for the Pope to get free from
   the power of the French. He therefore favoured the expedition
   of King Henry, and hoped that it would revive the Ghibelin
   party and counteract the influence of the Guelfs, who were on
   the side of France. Dante tells us the feelings which were
   roused by the coming of the King. He seemed to come as God's
   vicegerent, to change the fortunes of men and bring the exiled
   home; by the majesty of his presence to bring the peace for
   which the banished poet longed, and to administer to all men
   justice; judgment and equity. Henry was worthy of these high
   hopes; for he was wise, just, and gracious, courageous in
   fight and honourable in council: but the task was too hard for
   him. At first all seemed to go well with him. The Ghibelins
   were ready to receive him as their natural lord; the Guelfs
   were inclined towards him by the Pope. In Milan the chief
   power was in the hands of Guido della Torre, the descendant of
   Pagano della Torre, who had done good service to the city
   after the battle of Corte Nuova. He was a strong Guelf, and
   was at the head of a large number of troops; for he was very
   rich. His great enemy was the Ghibelin Matteo Visconti, who
   continually struggled with Guido for the mastery. The king was
   willingly received by the Milanese, and Guido was not
   behindhand in bidding him welcome. While he was at Milan, on
   Christmas Day, 1310, he was crowned with the iron crown of the
   Italian kingdom, which was made of steel in the shape of
   laurel leaves, and studded with gems. He made both parties
   enter into an outward reconciliation, and the chiefs of both
   vied with one another in making him large presents. The King's
   need of money soon tired out the Milanese, and an insurrection
   was made in which both Matteo and Guido joined; but Matteo
   betrayed his rival, and Guido and all the Guelfs were driven
   out of Milan, which henceforth remained in the power of the
   Ghibelin Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. The King's
   demands for money made him unpopular, and each city, as he
   left it, rose against him. Pisa, and the other Tuscan enemies
   of Florence, received him with joy. But the great Guelfic city
   shut her gates against him, and made alliance with Robert, the
   Angevin King of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, and
   afterwards gave him [Robert] the signoria. Rome received a
   garrison from Naples, and the Imperial coronation had to be
   performed in the Church of St. John Lateran,"—Henry being
   repulsed in an attempt to force his entrance to the quarter of
   the Vatican.

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4._

   "The city [of Rome] was divided in feeling, and the emperor's
   position so precarious that he retired to Tivoli at the end of
   August, and moved towards Tuscany, ravaging the Perugian
   territory on his way, being determined to bring Florence and
   all her allies to submission." By rapid movements he reached
   Florence and invested the city before his intentions were
   understood. "A sudden assault would probably have carried the
   city, for the inhabitants were taken by surprise, were in a
   state of consternation, and could scarcely believe that the
   emperor was there in person: their natural energy soon
   returned, the Gonfaloniers assembled their companies, the
   whole population armed themselves, even to the bishop and
   clergy; a camp was formed within the walls, the outer ditch
   palisaded, the gates closed, and thus for two days they
   remained hourly expecting an assault. At last their cavalry
   [which had been cut off by the emperor's movement] were seen
   returning by various ways and in small detachments; succours
   also poured in from Lucca, Prato, Pistoia, Volterra, Colle,
   and San Gimignano; and even Bologna, Rimini, Ravenna, Faenza,
   Cesina, Agobbio, Città di Castello with several other places
   rendered their assistance: indeed so great and extensive was
   Florentine influence and so rapid the communication, that
   within eight days after the investment 4,000 men at arms and
   innumerable infantry were assembled at Florence! As this was
   about double the imperial cavalry and four times its infantry,
   the city gates were thrown open and business proceeded as
   usual, except through that entrance immediately opposite to
   the enemy. For two and forty days did the emperor remain
   within a mile of Florence, ravaging all the country, but
   making no impression on the town; after which he raised the
   siege and moved to San Casciano, eight miles south." Later,
   the Imperialist army was withdrawn to Poggibonzi, and in
   March, 1313, it was moved to Pisa, to prepare for a new
   campaign. "The Florentines had thus from the first, without
   much military skill or enterprise, proved themselves the
   boldest and bitterest enemies of Henry; their opposition had
   never ceased; by letters, promises, and money, they corrupted
   all Lombardy. … Yet party quarrels did not cease. … The
   emperor now turned all his energies to the conquest of Naples,
   as the first step towards that of Italy itself. For this he
   formed a league with Sicily and Genoa; assembled troops from
   Germany and Lombardy; filled his treasury in various ways, and
   soon found himself at the head of 2,500 German cavalry and
   1,500 Italian men-at-arms, besides a Genoese fleet of 70
   galleys under Lamba Doria and 50 more supplied by the King of
   Sicily, who with 1,000 men-at-arms had already invaded
   Calabria by capturing Reggio and other places." On the 5th of
   August, the emperor left Pisa upon his expedition against
   Naples; on the 24th of the same month he died at Buonconvento
   —not without suspicions of poison, although his illness began
   before his departure from Pisa. "The intelligence of this
   event spread joy and consternation amongst his friends and
   enemies; the army soon separated, and his own immediate
   followers with the Pisan auxiliaries carried his body back to
   Pisa where it was magnificently interred."

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1312-1338.
   The rising power and the reverses of the Scaligeri of Verona.
   Mastino's war with Florence and Venice.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338:

{1822}

ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
   Guelf leadership of King Robert of Naples.
   Wars of Pisa and Florence.
   The rise and threatening power of Castruccio Castracani.
   Siege of Genoa.
   Visit of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.
   Subjection and deliverance of Pisa.

   "While the unexpected death of Henry VII. deprived the
   Ghibelin party of its leader, and long wars between rival
   candidates for the succession to the German throne placed the
   imperial authority over Italy in abeyance [see GERMANY: A. D.
   1314-1347], Robert, king of Naples, the chief of the Guelf
   party, the possessor of Provence, and the favourite of the
   church, began to aspire to the general sovereignty of Italy.
   He had succeeded to the crowns of Naples and Provence on the
   death of his father, Charles II., in opposition to the
   recognized laws of inheritance (A. D. 1309). His elder
   brother, Charles Martel, by his marriage with the heiress of
   Hungary, had been called to the throne of that kingdom, and
   had died before his father. His son, Carobert, the reigning
   king of Hungary, on the death of his grandfather, Charles II.,
   asserted his just rights to all the dominions of that monarch;
   but Robert, hastening to Avignon, whither Clement V. had now
   removed his court, obtained from the pope, as feudal superior
   of the royal fief of Naples, a sentence which set aside the
   claims of his nephew in his own favour. The king of Hungary
   did not seriously attempt to oppose this decision, and Robert,
   a prince of wisdom and address, though devoid of military
   talents, soon extended his ambitious views beyond the kingdom
   over which he reigned undisturbed." The death of Henry VII.
   "left him every opportunity both to attempt the subjugation of
   the Ghibelin states, and to convert his alliance with the
   Guelfs into the relation of sovereign and subject. … It was
   in Tuscany that the storm first broke over the Ghibelins after
   the loss of their imperial chief, and that the first ray of
   success unexpectedly beamed on their cause. Florence and the
   other Guelf cities of the province were no sooner delivered
   from the fear of Henry VII. than they prepared to wreak their
   vengeance against Pisa for the succours which she had
   furnished to the emperor. But that republic, in consternation
   at her danger, had taken into pay 1,000 German cavalry, the
   only part of the imperial army which could be prevailed upon
   to remain in Italy, and had chosen for her general Uguccione
   della Faggiuola, a celebrated Ghibelin captain. The ability of
   this commander, and the confidence with which he inspired the
   Pisans, turned the tide of fortune. … The vigour of his arms
   reduced the Guelf people of Lucca to sue for peace; they were
   compelled to restore their Ghibelin exiles; and then
   Uguccione, fomenting the dissensions which were thus created
   within the walls, easily subjected one of the most wealthy and
   flourishing cities of Tuscany to his sword (A. D. 1314). The
   loss of so valuable an ally as Lucca alarmed the Florentines,
   and the whole Guelf party. … King Robert sent two of his
   brothers into Tuscany with a body of gens-d'armerie; the
   Florentines and all the Tuscan Guelfs uniting their forces to
   this succour formed a large army; and the confederates
   advanced to relieve the castle of Montecatini which Uguccione
   was besieging." The Ghibelin commander had a much smaller
   force to resist them with; but he gained, notwithstanding, "a
   memorable victory, near Montecatini, in which both a brother
   and a nephew of the king of Naples were numbered with the
   slain (A. D. 1315). This triumph rendered Uguccione more
   formidable than ever; but his tyranny became insupportable
   both to the Pisans and Lucchese, and a conspiracy was formed
   in concert in both cities. … Excluded from both places and
   deserted by his troops, he retired to the court of the Scala
   at Verona (A. D. 1316). So Pisa recovered her liberty, but
   Lucca was less fortunate or wise, for her citizens only
   transferred the power which Uguccione had usurped to the chief
   of the Ghibelins. Castruccio Castracani degl' Interminelli,
   one of the most celebrated names in Italian history. This
   extraordinary man … had early in life shared the common fate
   of exile with the White Guelfs or Ghibelins of Lucca. Passing
   ten years of banishment in England, France, and the Ghibelin
   cities of Lombardy, he had served a long apprenticeship to
   arms under the best generals of the age. … He had no sooner
   returned to Lucca with the Ghibelin exiles, who were restored
   by the terms of the peace with Pisa, than he became the first
   citizen of the state. His skill and courage mainly contributed
   to the subsequent victory of Montecatini, and endeared him to
   the Lucchese; his influence and intrigues excited the
   jealousy of Uguccione, and caused his imprisonment; and the
   insurrection which delivered Lucca from that chief, liberated
   Castruccio from chains and impending death to sovereign
   command. Chosen annual captain of the people at three
   successive, elections, he at length demanded and obtained the
   suffrages of the senate and citizens for his elevation to the
   dignity of signor (A. D. 1320): … Under his government Lucca
   enjoyed repose for some years. … During these transactions
   in Tuscany, the Lombard plains were still desolated by
   incessant and unsparing warfare. The efforts of the Neapolitan
   king were mainly directed to crush Matteo Visconti [see MILAN:
   A. D. 1277-1447] and the Ghibelins in this part of Italy;" but
   the power of the latter was continually spreading. "In this
   prosperous state of the Ghibelin interests the domestic feuds
   of Genoa attracted the tide of war to her gates. The ambitious
   rivalry of her four great families, of the Grimaldi, the
   Fieschi, the Spinola, and the Doria, had long agitated the
   bosom of the republic; and at the period before us the two
   former, who headed the Guelf party, had, after various
   convulsions, gained possession of the government. The Spinola
   and Doria, retiring from the city, fortified themselves in the
   smaller towns of the Genoese territory, and immediately
   invited the Ghibelin chiefs of Lombardy to their aid. The
   lords of Milan and Verona promptly complied with the demand,
   … and laid siege to the capital. The rulers of Genoa could
   then resort in their terror to no other protection than that
   of the Neapolitan king. Robert, conscious of the importance of
   preserving the republic from subjection to his enemies,
   hastened by sea to its defence, and obtained the absolute
   cession of the Genoese liberties into his hands for ten years
   as the price of his services. … After the possession of the
   suburbs and outworks of Genoa had been obstinately contested
   during ten months, the Ghibelins were compelled to raise the
   siege. But Robert had scarcely quitted the city to pass into
   Provence, when the exiles with aid from Lombardy again
   approached Genoa, and during four years continued a war of
   posts in its vicinity.
{1823}
   But neither the Lombard signors nor Robert engaged in this
   fruitless contest, and Lombardy again became the great theatre
   of warfare." But the power which Matteo Visconti was steadily
   building at Milan, for his family, could not be shaken, even
   though an invasion from France (1320), and a second from
   Germany (1322), was brought about through papal influence. At
   the same time Castruccio Castracani, having consolidated his
   despotism at Lucca, was making war upon the Florentines. When,
   in 1325, he succeeded in gaining possession of the Guelf city
   of Pistoia, "this acquisition, which was highly dangerous to
   Florence, produced such alarm in that republic that she called
   out her whole native force for the more vigorous prosecution
   of the war." Castruccio was heavily outnumbered in the
   campaign, but he gained, nevertheless, a great victory over
   the Florentines near the castle of Altopascio (November 23,
   1325). "The whole Florentine territory was ravaged and
   plundered, and the conqueror carried his insults to the gates
   of the capital. … In the ruin which threatened the Guelf
   party in Tuscany, the Florentines had recourse to King Robert
   of Naples, with entreaties for aid," which he brought to them
   in 1326, but only on the condition "that his absolute command
   over the republic, which had expired in 1321, should be
   renewed for ten years in favour of his son Charles, duke of
   Calabria." But now a new danger to the Guelf interests
   appeared, in the approach of the emperor, Louis IV. of
   Bavaria. "After a long contest for the crown of Henry VII.,
   Louis of Bavaria had triumphed over his rival, Frederic of
   Austria, and taken him prisoner at the sanguinary battle of
   Muhldorf, in 1322. Having since passed five years in
   confirming his authority in Germany, Louis was now tempted by
   ambition and cupidity to undertake an expedition into Italy
   (A. D. 1327)." Halting for some time at Milan, where he
   received the iron crown of Lombardy, and where he deposed and
   imprisoned Galeazzo Visconti, he proceeded into Tuscany "on
   his march to Rome, where he intended to receive the imperial
   crown. He was welcomed with joy by the signor of Lucca, and
   the superior genius of Castruccio at once acquired the entire
   ascendant over the weaker mind of Louis. Against the united
   forces of the emperor and of Castruccio, the duke of Calabria
   and his Guelf army cautiously maintained themselves on the
   defensive; but the passage of Louis through Tuscany was
   attended with disastrous consequences to the most famous
   Ghibelin city of that province." Pisa, notwithstanding the
   long fidelity of that republic to the Ghibelin cause, was
   sacrificed by the emperor to the covetous ambition of
   Castruccio. The forces of the two were joined in a siege to
   which the unfortunate city submitted after a month. "She thus
   fell in reality into the hands of Castruccio, who shortly
   established his absolute authority over her capital and
   territory. After extorting a heavy contribution from the
   Pisans, and rewarding the services of Castruccio by erecting
   the state of Lucca into an imperial duchy in his favour, the
   rapacious emperor pursued his march to Rome. There he consumed
   in the frivolous ceremony of his coronation [January 17,
   1328], and in the vain endeavour to establish an antipope, the
   time which he might have employed, with the forces at his
   command, and in conjunction with Frederic, king of Sicily, in
   crushing for ever the power of Robert of Naples and of all the
   Guelfs of Italy who depended on that monarch." In August of
   the same year Castruccio, who "had now attained an elevation
   which seemed to threaten … the total subjugation of all
   Italy," died suddenly of a fever. "Florence breathed again
   from impending oppression, Pisa recovered her freedom, and
   Lucca sank from ephemeral splendour into lasting obscurity. By
   the death of Castruccio the emperor had lost his best
   counsellor and firmest support, and he soon ceased to be
   formidable to the Guelfs. … Hastily returning into Tuscany,
   he plundered the infant orphans of Castruccio of their
   inheritance to sell Lucca to a new signor, and to impose
   ruinous contributions upon the Pisans, before his return into
   Lombardy delivered them from tyranny. … The first proceeding
   of Louis in Lombardy had been to ruin the Visconti, and to
   drain their states of money: almost his last act in the
   province was to make the restoration of this family to power a
   new source of profit." In 1330 the emperor returned to
   Germany, recalled by troubles in that part of his dominions.

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4, part 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _N. Machiavelli,
      The Florentine Histories,
      book 2._

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapters 15-18 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1314-1327.
   The election and contest of rival emperors, Louis of Bavaria
   and Frederick of Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

ITALY: A. D. 1341-1343.
   Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans, before Lucca.
   Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1343-1389.
   Troubled reign of Joanna I. in Naples.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the great Schism in the Church.
   The war of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Violent course of Pope Urban VI.

   "In Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion.
   Charles II. of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary
   [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1342], which passed to his eldest son
   Charles Martel, while his second son, Robert, ruled in Naples.
   But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the
   kingdom [1343] his grand-daughter Giovanna [better known as
   Joan, or Joanna]. The attempt to give stability to the rule of
   a female by marriage with her cousin, Andrew of Hungary, only
   aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles and raised up a
   strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II.
   of Naples, Giovanna's great-grand-father, had left many sons
   and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of
   Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III. in
   England, hoped to exercise the royal power. When, in 1845,
   Pope Clement VI. was on the point of recognising Andrew as
   King of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he
   was murdered, with the connivance, as it was currently
   believed, of the Queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed
   forth more violently than before; the party of Durazzo ranged
   itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the
   murderers; Giovanna I., to protect herself, married Lewis of
   Tarento in 1347. King Lewis of Hungary, aided by the party of
   Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for
   a while all was confusion. On the death of Lewis of Tarento
   (1362), Giovanna I. married James, King of Majorca, and on his
   death (1374), Otto, Duke of Brunswick.
{1824}
   Giovanna I. was childless, and the slight lull which in the
   last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was
   only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the
   inevitable conflict which her death would bring." Neapolitan
   affairs were at this stage when the great schism occurred (see
   PAPACY; A. D. 1377-1417), which enthroned two rival popes, one
   (Urban VI.) at Rome, and one (Clement VII.) at Avignon. Queen
   Giovanna had inclined first to Urban, but was repelled, and
   gave her adhesion to Clement. Thereupon, Urban, on the 21st of
   April, 1380, "declared her deposed from her throne as a
   heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the Pope. He looked for
   help in carrying out his decree to King Lewis of Hungary, who
   had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against
   Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandisement
   when a favourable opportunity offered. … Lewis was not
   himself disposed to leave his kingdom; but he had at his court
   the son of his relative, Lewis of Durazzo, whom he had put to
   death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's
   murder. Yet he felt compassion for his young son Charles,
   brought him to Hungary, and educated him at his court. As
   Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo della
   Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the
   Neapolitan throne at her death." Charles of Durazzo was
   accordingly furnished with Hungarian troops for an expedition
   against Naples, and reached Rome in November, 1380. "Clement
   VII. on his side bestirred himself in behalf of his ally
   Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of
   France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois
   could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne, as being
   descended from the daughter of Charles II. The helpless
   Giovanna I. in her need adopted as her heir and successor
   Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called
   him to her aid. Clement VII. hastened to confer on Louis
   everything that he could; he even formed the States of the
   Church into a kingdom of Adria, and bestowed them on Louis;
   only Rome itself, and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania
   Maritima, and Sabina were reserved for the Pope. The
   Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared
   for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness
   of his office. Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for
   Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles
   V. in September, 1380. The accession of Charles VI. at the age
   of twelve threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council
   of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He
   used his position to gratify his chief failing, avarice, and
   gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign.
   Meanwhile Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI.
   equipped him for his undertaking." In June, 1381, Charles
   marched against Naples, defeated Otto, the husband of
   Giovanna, at San Germano, and had the gates of Naples opened
   to him by a rising within the city on the 16th of July.
   Giovanna took refuge in the Castel Nuovo, but surrendered it
   on the 26th of August. After nine months of captivity, the
   unfortunate queen was "strangled in her prison on May 12,
   1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial
   that the certainty of her death might be known to all.
   Thenceforth the question between Charles III. and Louis was
   not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It
   was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a
   struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned
   King of Naples by Clement VII., Louis of Anjou quitted Avignon
   at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French
   barons and knights. He hastened through North Italy, and
   disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement
   VII. by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi,
   and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which, they said, he might
   have occupied, seized Urban VI., and so ended the Schism. When
   he entered the territory of Naples he soon received large
   accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while 22
   galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples."
   Charles, having inferior forces, could not meet his adversary
   in the field, but showed great tactical skill, acting on the
   defensive, "cutting off supplies, and harassing his enemy by
   unexpected sallies. The French troops perished miserably from
   the effects of the climate; … Louis saw his splendid army
   rapidly dwindling away." But quarrels now arose between
   Charles and Pope Urban; the latter went to Naples to interfere
   in affairs; the King made him practically a prisoner and
   extorted from him agreements which were not to his liking. But
   Urban, on the 1st of January, 1384, "proclaimed a crusade
   against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles
   unfurled the banner of the Cross." In May the Pope withdrew
   from Naples to Nocera, and there began a series of
   interferences which convinced Charles "that Urban was a more
   serious adversary than Louis." With the summer came attacks of
   the plague upon both armies; but that of Louis suffered most,
   and Louis himself died, in September, bequeathing his claims
   on Naples to his eldest son. "On the death of Louis the
   remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one
   antagonist. … War was now declared between the Pope and the
   King. … Charles found adherents amongst Urban's Cardinals."
   Urban discovered the plots of the latter and threw six of them
   into a dungeon, where he tortured them with brutality. Charles
   attacked Nocera and took the town, but the castle in which the
   Pope had fortified himself resisted a long siege. "Three or
   four times a day the dauntless Pope appeared at a window, and
   with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging
   army." In August, 1385, Urban was rescued by some of his
   partisans, who broke through the camp of the besiegers and
   carried him off, still clinging to his captive cardinals, all
   but one of whom he subsequently put to death. He made his way
   to Trani and was there met by Genoese galleys which conveyed
   him and his party to Genoa. He resided in Genoa rather more
   than a year, very much to the discomfort and expense of the
   Genoese, and then, after much difficulty, found shelter at
   Lucca until September, 1387. Meantime Charles III. had left
   Naples, returning to Hungary to head a revolt against the
   widowed queen and young daughter of Lewis, who died in 1382.
   There he was assassinated in February, 1386. "The death of
   Charles III. again plunged the kingdom of Naples into
   confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against
   Charles, raised against his son Ladislas, a boy of twelve
   years old, the claims of Louis II. of Anjou.
{1825}
   The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke
   dissatisfaction, and led to the appointment in Naples of a new
   civic magistracy, called the Otto di Buono Stato, who were at
   variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of
   Sanseverino, and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of
   Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that
   of Clement VII., who, in May 1385, had solemnly invested him
   with the kingdom of Naples. Urban VI., however, refused to
   recognise the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret
   tried to propitiate him … and though Florence warmly
   supported her prayers for help." The Pope continued obstinate
   in this refusal until his death. He declared that the kingdom
   of Naples had lapsed to the Holy See, and he tried to gather
   money and troops for an expedition to secure it. As a means to
   that end, he ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of
   jubilee—a decade before the end of the century. It was his
   last desperate measure to obtain money. On the 15th of October
   1389 he died and one of the most disastrous pontificates in
   the history of the Papacy came to an end.

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Historical Life of Joanna of Sicily._

      _Mrs. Jameson,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _St. C. Baddeley,
      Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI._

ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
   The "Free Companies."
   Their depredations and the wars employing them.
   The Great Company.
   The Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

   "The practice of hiring troops to fight the battles of the
   Commonwealth [of Florence—but in other Italian states no
   less] had for some time past been continually on the increase.
   … The demand for these mercenary troops,—a demand which …
   preferred strangers from beyond the Alps,—had filled Italy
   with bands of free lances, ready to take service with any
   tyrant, or any free city that was willing to pay them. They
   passed from one service to another, and from one side of a
   quarrel to the other, with the utmost indifference and
   impartiality. But from this manner of life to setting up for
   themselves and warring for their own behoof there was but one
   step. And no prudent man could have doubted that this step
   would ere long be taken. Every circumstance of the age and
   country combined to invite and facilitate it. … Already,
   immediately after the fall of the Duke of Athens [at Florence,
   1343], a German adventurer, one Werner, known in Italian
   history as the Duke Guarnieri, had induced a large number of
   the hired troops, who were then 'unattached' in Italy, mainly
   those dismissed at that time from the service of Pisa, to form
   themselves into an independent company and recognize him as
   their leader. With equal effrontery and accuracy this ruffian
   styled himself 'The enemy of God, of Pity, and of Mercy.' …
   This gang of bandits numbered more than 2,000 horsemen. Their
   first exploit was to threaten the city of Siena. Advancing
   through the Sienese territory towards the city, plundering,
   killing, and burning indiscriminately as they went, they
   inspired so sudden and universal a terror that the city was
   glad to buy them off with a sum of 12,000 florins. From the
   Sienese territory they passed to that of Arezzo, and thence to
   the district around Perugia; and then turning towards the
   Adriatic, overran Romagna, and the Rimini country, then
   governed by the Malatesat family. It is difficult adequately
   to describe, or even to conceive the sufferings, the
   destruction, the panic, the horror, which marked the track of
   such a body of miscreants." Finally, by the skilful management
   of the Lord of Bologna, the company was bought up and sent
   across the Alps, out of Italy, in detachments. "The relief was
   obtained in a manner which was sure to operate as an
   encouragement to the formation of other similar bands. And
   now, after the proclamation of the peace between Florence and
   the Visconti, on the 1st of April, 1353, … the experiment
   which had answered so well in the hands of the German 'Enemy
   to God and to Mercy,' was repeated on a larger scale by a
   French Knight Hospitaller of the name of Montreal, known in
   Italian history as Frà Moriale. … Being out of place, it
   occurred to him to collect all the fighting men in Italy who
   were similarly circumstanced, and form an independent company
   after the example of Guarnieri, with the avowed purpose of
   living by plunder and brigandage. He was so successful that he
   collected in a very short time 1,500 men-at-arms and 2,000
   foot soldiers; who were subsequently increased to 5,000
   cavaliers and 7,000 infantry; and this band was known as 'the
   Great Company.'" There was an attempt made, at first, to
   combine Florence, Siena and Perugia, with the Romagna, in
   resistance to the marauders; but it failed. "The result was
   that the Florentines were obliged to buy off the terrible Frà
   Moriale with a bribe of 28,000 florins, and Pisa with one of
   16,000. … The chief … after Frà Moriale himself, was one
   Conrad, Count of Lando; and under him the Company marched
   towards Lombardy in search of fresh booty, while Moriale
   himself, remaining temporarily behind, went to Rome to confer
   privately, as it was believed, with the Colonna chiefs,
   respecting a project of employing his band against Rienzi, the
   tribune. But whether such was the object of his journey to
   Rome or not, it was fatal to the brigand chief. For Rienzi no
   sooner knew that the notorious Frà Moriale was within his
   jurisdiction than he arrested him, and summarily ordered him
   to execution as a common malefactor. The death of the chief,
   however, did not put an end to 'the Great Company'; for Conrad
   of Lando remained, and succeeded to the command of it." From
   1356 to 1359, Italy in different parts was preyed upon by 'the
   Great Company,' sometimes in the service of the league of the
   lesser Lombard princes against the Visconti of Milan, and once
   in the employ of Siena against Perugia; but generally
   marauding on their own account, independently. Florence,
   alone, stood out in resistance to their exactions, and finally
   sent into the field against them 2,000 men-at-arms, all tried
   troops, 500 Hungarians: and 2,500 cross-bowmen, besides the
   native troops of the city. Subsequently the Florentine forces
   were joined by others from Milan, Padua, and elsewhere. The
   bandits marched all around the Florentine frontier, with much
   bluster, making great threats, but constantly evading an
   engagement. At length, on the 20th of July, 1359, the two
   armies were in such a position that "it was thought in the
   Florentine camp that a decisive battle would be fought on the
   morrow. But when that July morning dawned, Lando and his
   bandit host were already in full march northwards towards
   Genoa, with a precipitation that had all the appearance of
   flight. … 'The Great Company never again dared to show its
   face in Tuscany.'"

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

{1826}

   "Another company, consisting principally of Englishmen [lately
   turned loose in France by the Peace of Bretigny, 1360, which
   terminated the invasion of Edward III.], was brought into
   Italy at a somewhat later period by the Marquis of Montferrat.
   … About the same time another, composed principally of
   Germans, and commanded by Amichino Baumgarten, was raised by
   Galeazzo Visconti, and afterwards employed by the Pisans.
   Another, entitled that of St. George, was formed by Ambrose,
   the natural son of Bernabos Visconti, and let loose by him on
   the territories of Perugia and Sienna. Thus, at the end of the
   14th century, Italy was devastated at one and the same time by
   these four companies of adventurers, or, as they might more
   justly be called, professional robbers. … Of all these
   companies, the military reputation of the English was
   undoubtedly the greatest—a circumstance which may be
   ascribed, in some degree, to the physical superiority of the
   men, but still more to the talents of Sir John Hawkwood, by
   whom they were commanded."

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   One of the marauding companies left in France after the Peace
   of Bretigny, and which afflicted that wretched country so
   sorely (see FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380), was called the White
   Company, and Sir John Hawkwood was one of its commanders. "The
   White Company crossed into Lombardy, under the command of one
   Albaret, and took service under the Marquis of Montferrat,
   then at war with the Duke of Milan. Hawkwood [called Giovanni
   Aguto by the Italians] entered the Pisan service, and next
   year, when the marquis, being unable to maintain his English
   troops, disbanded them, the Pisans engaged them, and gave
   Hawkwood the command." Hawkwood and his company served Pisa,
   in war with Florence, until 1364, when they experienced a
   great defeat, which led to peace and their discharge. During
   the next three years they lived as independent freebooters,
   the territories of Siena suffering most from their
   depredations. Then they took service with Bernabo Visconti,
   Lord of Milan, making war for him on Florence and its allies;
   but very soon their arms were turned against Milan, and they
   were fighting in the pay of Florence and the Pope. "Within the
   next five years he changed sides twice. He served Galeazzo
   Visconti against the Papal States; and then, brought back to
   fight for Holy Church, defeated his late employer in two
   pitched battles." After this, when the league against an
   aggressive and ambitious pontiff extended, and Florence,
   Bologna and other cities joined Milan, Hawkwood took money
   from both at the same time, and cheated both, preliminarily to
   fighting each in turn. While serving the Pope his ruffians
   wantonly destroyed the captured town of Casena, massacring
   between 4,000 and 5,000 people, women and children included.
   In 1378, when Gregory XI. died, peace followed, and Hawkwood's
   company resumed its old freebooting. In 1381 he was engaged in
   the Neapolitan civil war. In 1387 he seems to have become
   permanently engaged in the service of Florence against the
   Duke of Milan. "In 1391, Florence concluded a general peace
   with all her enemies. Her foreign auxiliaries were dismissed,
   with the exception or Sir John Hawkwood and 1,000 men.
   Hawkwood henceforth remained in her service till his death,
   which took place on the 6th of March, 1393. He was buried at
   the public expense, as a valiant servant of the State."

      _Sir John Hawkwood
      (Bentley's Miscellany,
      volume 54, pages 284-291)._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Browning,
      Guelphs and Ghibellines,
      chapter 12. _

ITALY: A. D. 1347-1354.
   Rienzi's Revolution at Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

ITALY: A. D. 1348-1355.
   War of Genoa against Venice, the Greeks and Aragonese.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

ITALY: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation and revolt of the States of the Church.
   War of the Pope with Florence.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ITALY: A. D. 1378-1427.
   The democratizing of Florence.
   Tumult of the Ciompi.
   First appearance of the Medici.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

ITALY: A. D. 1379-1381.
   Final triumph of Venice over Genoa in the War of Chioggia.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1386-1414.
   Renewed Civil War in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins and triumph of Ladislas.
   His ambitious career.
   His capture and recapture of Rome.

   "The death of Charles III. involved the kingdom of Naples in
   the most ruinous anarchy; and delivered it for many years a
   prey to all the disorders of a long minority and a disputed
   throne. Charles had left two children, Ladislaus, a boy of ten
   years old, and a daughter, Joanna; and his widow Margaret
   acted as regent for her son. On the other hand, the
   Sanseverini and other baronial families, rallying the Angevin
   party, proclaimed the young son of the late duke of Anjou
   king,—also under the guardianship of his mother, Maria,—by
   the title of Louis II. Thus Naples was disturbed by the rival
   pretensions of two boys, placed beneath the guidance of
   ambitious and intriguing mothers, and severally protected by
   two popes, who excommunicated each other, and laboured to
   crush the minors whom they respectively opposed, only that
   they might establish their own authority over the party which
   they supported. … For several years the Angevin party seemed
   to maintain the ascendancy. Louis II. was withheld in Provence
   from the scene of danger by his mother; but the barons who had
   raised his standard, forcing Margaret of Durazzo and the
   adherents of her son to retire to Greta, possessed themselves
   of the capital and great part of the kingdom. When Louis II.,
   therefore, was at length suffered by his mother to appear at
   Naples, attended by a powerful fleet and a numerous train of
   the warlike nobles of France (A. D. 1390), he disembarked at
   the capital amidst the acclamations of his people, and would
   probably have overpowered the party of Durazzo with ease, if,
   as he advanced towards manhood, he had displayed any energy of
   character. But he proved very unequal, by his indolence and
   love of pleasure, to contend with the son of Charles III.
   Educated in the midst of alarms and danger, and surrounded
   from his infancy by civil wars and conspiracies, Ladislaus had
   early been exercised in courageous enterprise, and trained to
   intrigue and dissimulation.
{1827}
   At the age of 16, his mother Margaret committed him to the
   barons of her party to make his first essay in arms; and from
   this period he was ever at the head of his troops. … A
   fortunate marriage, which his mother had effected for him with
   Constance di Clermont, the heiress of the most opulent noble
   of Sicily, increased his resources by an immense dowry; and
   while he made an able use of these riches [meanly and
   heartlessly divorcing the wife who brought them to him, when
   they had been spent], the new Italian pope, Boniface IX., the
   successor of Urban VI., recognized him for the legitimate son
   and vassal of the church, because Louis was supported by the
   Avignon pontiff. This decision gained him many partizans; …
   his talents and valour hourly advanced his success; and at
   last the Sanseverini and all the barons of the Angevin party,
   following the tide of fortune, went over to his standards, and
   opened to him the gates of Naples (A. D. 1399). Louis …
   retired by sea to his Provençal dominions, and finally
   abandoned the kingdom of Naples. Ladislaus, having thus
   triumphed over his sluggish antagonist, had leisure to
   consolidate his stern authority over the licentious and
   turbulent feudal aristocracy of his kingdom. … He …
   crushed the Sanseverini and other great families, whose power
   might make them dangerous; and having rooted out the seeds of
   all resistance to his sway in his own dominions, he prepared
   to direct his vigorous ambition to schemes of foreign
   conquest."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 5, part 3._

   Until the death of Pope Boniface IX., Ladislas supported that
   pontiff through the hard struggle in which he crushed the
   rebellious Colonna and made himself master of the city of
   Rome. But when Boniface died, in 1404, the Neapolitan king
   began to scheme for bringing the ancient capital and the
   possessions of the Church under his own control. "His plan was
   to set the Pope [the newly elected Innocent, VII.] and the
   Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and
   now the other to get them both into his power. … He trusted
   that the rebellious Romans would drive the Pope from the city,
   and would then be compelled to submit to himself." He had
   entered Rome, four days after the papal election, ostensibly
   as a mediator between the rival factions, and between the Pope
   and the Roman people; and he was easily able to bring about an
   arrangement which gave him every opportunity for interference
   and for turning circumstances to his own advantage. Events
   soon followed as he had expected them, and as he helped,
   through his agents, to guide them. The turbulence of the
   people increased, until, in 1405, the Pope was driven to
   flight. "No sooner had the Pope left Rome than Giovanni
   Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican,
   where he took up his quarters. … The Vatican was sacked;
   even the Papal archives were pillaged, and Bulls, letters and
   registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were
   afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must
   have been great." Ladislas now thought his time for seizing
   Rome was come; but when he sent 5,000 horse to join the
   Colonna, the Romans took alarm, repelled the Neapolitan
   troops, and called back the Pope, who returned in January,
   1406, but who died in the following November. Under the next
   Pope, Gregory XII., there were negotiations with Avignon for
   the ending of the great schism; and all the craft of Ladislas
   was exerted to defeat that purpose; because a reunion of
   western Christendom would not be favorable to his designs. At
   last, a conference of the rival popes was arranged, to take
   place at Savona, near Genoa, and in August, 1407, Gregory XII.
   left Rome, moving slowly northwards, but finding reasons,
   equally with his competitor, for never presenting himself at
   the appointed meeting-place. In his absence the disorders of
   Rome increased, and when Ladislas, in April, 1408; appeared
   before the city with an army of 12,000 horse and as many foot,
   it was surrendered to him without resistance. "The craft of
   Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the
   Papacy had passed into his hands. … So utterly had the
   prestige of Rome, the memories of her glories, passed away
   from men's minds, that her sister republic of Florence could
   send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which
   God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome."
   When, in 1408, the disgusted cardinals of both papal courts
   joined in calling a general Council of the Church, to meet at
   Pisa the following year, Ladislas threatened to prevent it. By
   this time "Gregory had sank to the lowest pitch of
   degradation: he sold to Ladislas for the small sum of 25,000
   florins the entire States of the Church, and even Rome itself.
   After this bargain Ladislas set out for Rome, intending to
   proceed into Tuscany and break up the Council." Early in
   April, 1409, he marched northwards and threatened Siena. But
   Florence had now undertaken the defense of the Council, and
   resisted him so effectually that the meeting at Pisa was
   undisturbed. The immediate result of the Council was the
   election of a third claimant of the Papacy, Alexander V. (see
   PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417). Around the new Pope a league was now
   formed which embraced Florence, Siena, and Louis of Anjou,
   whose claim upon Naples was revived. The league made an
   attempt on Rome in the autumn of 1409, and failed; but the
   following January the Neapolitans were expelled and the city
   was occupied by the papal forces. In May, 1410, Alexander V.
   died, and was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa, who took the name
   of John XXIII. The new Pope hastened to identify his cause
   with Louis of Anjou, and succeeded, by his energy, in putting
   into the field an army which comprised the four chief
   "condottieri" in Italy, with their veteran followers. Ladislas
   was attacked and routed completely at Rocca Secca, on the 19th
   of May, 1411. But the worthlessness of Louis and the mercenary
   character of his generals made the victory of no effect.
   Ladislas bought over the best of the troops and their leaders,
   and before the end of summer Louis was back in Provence, again
   abandoning his Neapolitan claims. Ladislas made peace, first,
   with Florence, by selling Cortona to that city, and then with
   the Pope, who recognized him as king, not only of Naples, but
   of Sicily as well. But Ladislas was only gaining time by these
   treaties. In June, 1413, he drove the Pope from Rome, and his
   troops again occupied the city. He seemed to be now well
   prepared for realizing his ambition to found an extended
   Italian kingdom; but his career was cut short by a mortal
   disease, which ended his life on the 6th of August, 1414.

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 1, chapters 3-8 (volume 1)._

{1828}

ITALY: A. D. 1390-1402.
   Resistance of Florence to the spreading tyranny of the Duke of
   Milan.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

ITALY: A. D. 1391-1451.
   Extension of the Italian dominions of the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

ITALY: A. D. 1396-1409.
   The sovereignty of Genoa yielded to the King of France.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
   The crumbling of the Visconti dominion.
   Aggrandizement of Venice.
   Florentine purchase and conquest of Pisa.
   Decline of that city.

   "The little states of Romagna, which had for the most part
   been conquered by Gian-Galeazzo [Visconti, Duke of Milan],
   were at his death [1402] overrun by the Count of Barbiano, who
   with his famous company entered the service of Pope Boniface
   IX. … The Count of Savoy, the Marquess of Montferrat, and
   the lords of Padua, Ferrara, and Mantua, were the only
   independent Sovereigns in North Italy in 1402. Of these
   Francesco, lord of Padua, was soon to fall. On the death of
   Gian-Galeazzo he seized on Verona. Venice would not allow her
   old enemy to gain this advantage, and made alliance with
   Francesco di Gonzaga, lord of Mantua, and with his help took
   Verona, and closely besieged Padua. After a gallant resistance
   Francesco da Carrara was forced to yield, and he and his two
   sons were taken prisoners to Venice, and were there strangled
   by order of the Council of Ten. This war gave the Venetians
   great power on the mainland. They reconquered Treviso, and
   gained Feltro, Verona [1405], Vicenza, and Padua [1405], and
   from this time Venice became an Italian power. In Tuscany, the
   death of her great enemy delivered Florence from her distress,
   and Siena, which now regained her liberty, placed herself
   under her protection. Pisa [which had been betrayed to
   Gian-Galeazzo in 1399] had been left to Gabriello Visconti, a
   bastard son of the late Duke. He put himself under the
   protection of Jean Boucicault, who governed Genoa for Charles
   VI., King of France, and with his consent he sold Pisa to the
   Florentines. The Pisans resisted this sacrifice of their
   freedom, and the war lasted a year, but in 1406 the city was
   forced to surrender. Many of the people left their homes; for,
   though Florence acted fairly towards her old enemy and new
   subject, yet the Pisans could not bear the yoke, and the
   greatness of the city, its trade and its wealth, vanished
   away."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 6._

   "From that day to this it [Pisa] has never recovered,—not its
   former greatness, wealth, and energy,—but even sufficient
   vitality to arrest it on the downward course. … Of the two
   great political tendencies which were then disputing the world
   between them it made itself the champion and the symbol of the
   losing one. Pisa went down in the world together with the
   feudalism and Ghibellinism with which it was identified."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _The City in the Sea,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 21 (volume 3)._

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages,
      pages 340-367._

ITALY: A. D. 1409.
   The Council of Pisa.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
   Renewed civil war in Naples.
   Defeat of the Angevins by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.
   Reconquest of Lombardy by Filippo Maria Visconti, and his
   wars with Florence, Venice and Naples.

   On the death of Ladislaus, king of Naples (1414), "his sister,
   Joan II., widow of the son of the duke of Austria, succeeded
   him. She was 40 years of age; and, like her brother, abandoned
   to the most unrestrained libertinism. She left the government
   of her kingdom to her lovers, who disputed power by arms: they
   called into her service, or into that of her second husband,
   or of the rival princes whom she in turn adopted, the two
   armies of Sforza and Braccio [the two great mercenary captains
   of that time]. The consequence was the ruin of the kingdom of
   Naples, which ceased to menace the rest of Italy. The moment
   Ladislaus disappeared, a new enemy arose to disturb the
   Florentines—Filippo Maria Visconti [duke of Milan, second son
   of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, and successor to his elder brother
   Gian Maria, on the assassination of the latter, in 1412]. …
   Filippo … married the widow of Facino Cane, the powerful
   condottiere who had retained Gian Maria in 'his dependence,
   and who died the same day that Gian Maria was assassinated. By
   this sudden marriage he secured the army of Facino Cane,—
   which was, in fact, master of the greater part of the
   Milanese: with its aid he undertook, without delay, to recover
   the rest of his states from the hands of those tyrants who had
   divided amongst them the dominions of his father. … During
   the first year of his reign, which was to decide his existence
   as prince or subject, he fought with determined courage; but
   from that time, though he continually made war, he never
   showed himself to his armies. … In the battle of Monza, by
   which he acquired his brother's inheritance, and the only
   battle in which he was ever present, he remarked the brilliant
   courage of Francesco Carmagnola, a Piedmontese soldier of
   fortune, and immediately gave him a command. Carmagnola soon
   justified the duke's choice by the most distinguished talents
   for war, the most brilliant victories, and the most noble
   character. Francesco Carmagnola was, after a few years, placed
   at the head of the duke's armies; and, from the year 1412 to
   that of 1422, successively attacked all the tyrants who had
   divided the heritage of Gian Galeazzo, and brought those small
   states again under the dominion of the duke of Milan. Even the
   republic of Genoa submitted to him, in 1421, on the same
   conditions as those on which it had before submitted to the
   king of France,—reserving all its liberties; and granting the
   duke's lieutenant, who was Carmagnola himself, only those
   prerogatives which the constitution yielded to the doge. As
   soon as Filippo Maria had accomplished the conquest of
   Lombardy, he resumed the projects of his father against
   Romagna and Tuscany. He … renewed his intrigues against the
   republic of Florence, and combined them with those which he at
   the same time carried on in the kingdom of Naples. Joan, who
   had sent back to France her second husband, Jaques, count de
   la Marche, and who had no children, was persuaded, in 1420, by
   one of her lovers, to adopt Alphonso the Magnanimous, king of
   Aragon and Sicily, to whom she intrusted some of the
   fortresses of Naples. She revoked this adoption in 1423; and
   substituted in his place Louis III. of Anjou, son of Louis II.
   The former put himself at the head of the ancient party of
   Durazzo; the latter, of that of Anjou.
{1829}
   The consequence was a civil war, in which the two great
   captains, Sforza and Braccio, were opposed to each other, and
   acquired new titles to glory. The duke of Milan made alliance
   with Joan II. and Louis III. of Anjou: Sforza, named great
   constable of the kingdom, was their general. The Florentines
   remained constant to Braccio, whom Alphonso had made governor
   of the Abruzzi; and who had seized, at the same time, the
   signoria of Perugia, his native city. … But Sforza and
   Braccio both perished, as Italy awaited with anxiety the
   result of the struggle about to be commenced. Sforza was
   drowned at the passage of the Pescara, on the 4th of January,
   1424; Braccio was mortally wounded at the battle of Aquila, on
   the 2d of June of the same year. Francesco, son of the former,
   succeeded to his father's name and the command of his army,
   both of which he was destined to render still more
   illustrious. The son of Braccio, on the contrary, lost the
   sovereignty of Perugia, which resumed its freedom on the 29th
   of July of the same year; and the remnant of the army formed
   by this great captain elected for his chief his most able
   lieutenant, Nicolo Piccinino. This was the moment which
   Filippo Maria chose to push on his army to Romagna, and
   vigorously attack the Florentines. … The Florentines, having
   no tried general at the heart of their troops, experienced,
   from the 6th of September, 1423, to the 17th of October, 1425,
   no less than six successive defeats, either in Liguria or
   Romagna [at Forli, 1423, Zagonara, 1424, Lamone, Rapallo,
   Anghiari and Faggiola, 1425]. Undismayed by defeat, they
   reassembled their army for the seventh time: the patriotism of
   their rich merchants made up for the penury of their exhausted
   treasury. They, at the same time, sent their most
   distinguished statesmen as ambassadors to Venice, to represent
   to that republic that, if it did not join them while they
   still stood, the liberty of Italy was lost forever. … An
   illustrious fugitive, Francesco Carmagnola, who arrived about
   this time at Venice, accomplished what Florence had nearly
   failed in, by discovering to the Venetians the project of the
   duke of Milan to subjugate them." Carmagnola had been
   disgraced and discharged from employment by Filippo Maria,
   whose jealousy was alarmed by his great reputation, and he now
   took service against his late patron. "A league, formed
   between Florence and Venice, was successively joined by the
   marquis of Ferrara, the lord of Mantua, the Siennese, the duke
   Amadeus VIII. of Savoy, and the king Alphonso of Naples, who
   jointly declared war against Filippo Maria Visconti, on the
   27th of January, 1426. … The good fortune of Carmagnola in
   war still attended him in the campaign of 1426. He was as
   successful against the duke of Milan as he had been for him:
   he took from him the city and whole province of Brescia. The
   duke ceded this conquest to the Venetians by treaty on the
   30th of December; but he employed the winter in assembling his
   forces; and in the beginning of spring renewed the war." An
   indecisive engagement occurred at Casalsecco, July 12, 1427,
   and on the 11th of October following, in a marsh near Macalo,
   Carmagnola completely defeated the Milanese army commanded by
   Carlo Malatesta. A new peace was signed on the 18th of April,
   1428; but war recommenced in the latter part of 1430. Fortune
   now abandoned Carmagnola. He suffered a surprise and defeat at
   Soncino, May 17, 1431, and the suspicious senate of Venice
   caused him to be arrested, tortured and put to death. "During
   the remainder of the reign of Filippo Maria he was habitually
   at war with the two republics of Venice and Florence. He …
   almost always lost ground by his distrust of his own generals,
   his versatility, his taste for contradictory intrigues, his
   eagerness to sign peace every year, and to recommence
   hostilities a few weeks afterwards." In 1441, on making peace
   with the two republics, he granted his daughter Bianca in
   marriage to their general, Francesco Sforza, with two
   lordships for her dowry. But he was soon intriguing against
   his son-in-law, soon at war again with Florence and Venice,
   and Sforza was again in the service of the latter. But in 1447
   he made offers of reconciliation which were accepted, and
   Sforza was on his way to Milan when news came to him of the
   death of the duke, which occurred August 13. "The war of
   Lombardy was complicated by its connexion with another war
   which at the same time ravaged the kingdom of Naples. The
   queen, Joan II., had died there, on the 2d of February, 1435;
   three months after the death of her adopted son, Louis III. of
   Anjou: by her will she had substituted for that prince his
   brother René, duke of Lorraine. But Alphonso, king of Aragon
   and Sicily, whom she had primarily adopted, … claimed the
   succession, on the ground of this first adoption, as well as
   of the ancient rights of Manfred, to whom he had succeeded in
   the female line. The kingdom of Naples was divided between the
   parties of Aragon and Anjou. The Genoese, who had voluntarily
   ranged themselves under the protection of the duke of Milan,
   offered their assistance to the duke of Anjou. … On the 5th
   of August, 1435, their fleet met that of Alphonso, before the
   island of Ponza. They defeated it in a great battle, in which
   Alphonso had been made prisoner." Delivered to the duke of
   Milan, Alphonso soon convinced the latter that his alliance
   with the French interest at Naples was a mistake and a danger
   to him, and was set at liberty, with promises of aid. The
   Genoese were indignant at this and drove the Milanese garrison
   from their city, in December, 1435, recovering their freedom.
   "Alphonso, seconded by the duke of Milan, recommenced the war
   against René of Anjou with greater advantage. On the 2d of
   June, 1442, he took from him the city of Naples; from that
   time peace was re-established in that kingdom, and Alphonso
   … established himself amidst a people which he had
   conquered, but whose hearts he gained; and returned no more
   either to Sicily or Aragon. He died at Naples, on the 27th of
   June, 1458."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      books 3-4 (volume 1)._

      _Mrs. Jameson,
      Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _M. A. Hookham,
      Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      volume 1, introduction and chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1433-1464.
   The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

{1830}

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   End of the Visconti in the duchy of Milan.
   Disputed succession.
   Francesco Sforza in possession.
   War of Venice, Naples and other states
   against Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
   The Pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Regeneration of the Papacy.
   Revival of letters and art.
   Threatening advance of the Turks.
   Fresh troubles in Naples.
   Expulsion of the French from Genoa.

   "The failure of the Council of Basel [see PAPACY: A. D.
   1431-1448] restored the position of the Papacy, and set it
   free from control. The character and ability of Pope Nicolas
   [V., 1447-1455] made him respected, and the part which he took
   in politics made him rank amongst the great temporal powers in
   Italy. From this time onwards to the end of our history we
   shall see the Popes the undisputed Princes of Rome, and the
   lords of all that part of Italy which they claimed from the
   gift of Kings and Emperors, and not least from the will of the
   Countess Matilda. Pope Nicolas used this power better than any
   of those who came after him, for he used it in the cause of
   peace, and to forward learning and artistic taste. He applied
   himself to the general pacification of Italy, and brought
   about the Peace of Lodi in 1454, which was signed by Venice
   and Milan and by King Alfonso. Christendom had great need of
   peace, for, in 1453, Constantinople had been taken by the
   Infidels and Mahomet the Second was spreading his conquest
   over the East of Europe. Before the fall of the city a great
   many Greeks had come to Italy, on different missions, and
   especially to attend a Council at Florence, where terms of
   union were made between the Greek and Latin Churches. Their
   coming revived the taste for Greek learning, which had been so
   powerfully felt by Petrarca and Boccaccio. Pope Nicolas made
   Rome the centre of this literature, and others followed his
   example. Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, and many more,
   found enlightened patrons in the Pope, the King of Naples,
   Cosmo de'Medici, and Federigo, Count of Urbino. The Pope was a
   lover and patron of art as well as of literature. He rebuilt
   the churches, palaces, and fortifications of Rome and the
   Roman States, and formed the scheme of raising a church worthy
   of the memory of St. Peter, and left behind him the Vatican
   Palace as a worthy residence for the Apostle's successors. The
   Papal Library had been scattered during the Captivity and the
   Schism, but Pope Nicolas made a large collection of
   manuscripts, and thus founded the Library of the Vatican. The
   introduction of printing into Italy about this time gave great
   strength to the revival of learning. In 1452 the Pope crowned
   Frederic the Third Emperor at Rome with great magnificence.
   But he was not without danger in his city, for the next year a
   wild plot was made against him. A large number of Romans were
   displeased at the great power of the Pope. They were headed by
   Stefano Porcaro, who declared that he would free the city
   which had once been mistress of the world from the yoke of
   priests. The rising was to be ushered in by the slaughter of
   the Papal Court and the plunder of its treasures. The plot was
   discovered, and was punished with great severity. This was the
   last and most unworthy of the various attempts of the Romans
   to set up self-government. The advance of the Ottoman Turks
   during the latter part of the 15th century [see TURKS: A. D.
   1451-1481] caused the greatest alarm in Italy. Venice, from
   her possessions and her trade in the Levant, was most exposed
   to the attacks of the Infidels, and she became the great
   champion against them. The learned Æneas Sylvius was chosen
   Pope, in 1458, and took the title of Pius the Second. He
   caused a crusade to be preached against the Turks, but he died
   in 1464, while the forces were gathering. The Venetians were
   constantly defeated in the Archipelago, and lost Eubœa,
   Lesbos, and other islands [see GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479]. In
   1477 a large Turkish army entered Italy by Friuli, defeated
   the Venetians, and crossed the Tagliamento. They laid waste
   the country as far as the Piave, and their destroying fires
   could be seen from the Campanile of St. Mark's. In 1480
   Mahomet's great general, Ahmed Keduk, took the strong city of
   Otranto, and massacred its inhabitants. This expedition was
   secretly favoured by the Venetians to spite the King of
   Naples. The danger to all Italy was very great, for the Sultan
   eagerly longed to conquer the older Rome, but the death of
   Mahomet the Second, and a disputed succession to his throne,
   fortunately checked the further advance of the invaders. When
   Alfonso, King of Aragon, Naples, and Sicily, died in 1458, he
   left Aragon and Sicily, which he had inherited, to his
   legitimate son John; but the crown of Naples, which he had won
   for himself, he left to Ferdinand, his illegitimate son.
   Ferdinand was a cruel and suspicious man, and the barons
   invited John of Calabria to come and help them against him.
   John of Calabria was the son of Réné, who had been adopted by
   Queen Joanna, and who called himself King. He was the French
   Governor of Genoa, and so already had a footing in Italy. He
   applied to Sforza to help him, but the Duke of Milan was
   firmly attached to the Peace of Lodi, and was too justly
   fearful of the French power to do so. Lewis the Eleventh, King
   of France, was too wise to meddle in Italian politics.
   Florence, which was usually on the French side, was now under
   the influence of Cosmo de' Medici, and Cosmo was under the
   influence of Francesco Sforza, so that the Duke of Calabria
   found no allies. The Archbishop of Genoa, Paola Fregoso,
   excited the people to drive out the French [see GENOA: A. D.
   1458-1464] and the Doge Prospero Adorno, who belonged to their
   party. He then defeated King Réné, and the Duke of Calabria
   was forced to give up his attempt on Naples [1464]. The new
   government of Genoa was so oppressive that the Genoese put
   themselves under the protection of Francesco; Lewis the
   Eleventh ceded all his rights to him, and the city thus became
   part of the Duchy of Milan. The hopes of the French party in
   Italy were thus for the present entirely crushed."

      _W. Hunt,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 4, chapters 3-4 (volume 2)._

      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes,
      volume 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1466-1469.
   Florence under the five agents of Piero de' Medici.

      See FLORENCE: 1458-1469.

ITALY: A. D. 1469-1492.
   The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at
   Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

ITALY: A. D. 1490-1498.
   Savonarola at Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

{1831}

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494.
   Charles VIII. of France invited across the Alps to possess
   Naples.
   The hostile disunion of the Italian states.

   With the death of Lorenzo de Medici, which occurred at
   Florence in the spring of 1492, "the power vanished which had
   hitherto kept Naples and Milan quiet, and which, with subtle
   diplomatic skill, had postponed the breach of the peace in
   Italy. We find the comparison used, that Florence with Lorenzo
   at her head stood like a rocky dam between two stormy seas.
   Italy was at that time a free land and independent of foreign
   policy. Venice, with her well-established nobles at her head;
   Naples under the Aragonese, a branch of the family ruling in
   Spain; Milan, with Genoa, under Sforza—all three able powers
   by land and sea—counterbalanced each other. Lorenzo ruled
   central Italy; the small lords of the Romagna were in his pay,
   and the pope was on the best terms of relationship with him.
   But in Milan the mischief lay hidden. Ludovico Sforza, the
   guardian of his nephew Gian Galeazzo, had completely usurped
   the power. He allowed his ward to pine away mentally and
   bodily; he was bringing the young prince slowly to death. But
   his consort, a Neapolitan princess, saw through the treachery,
   and urged her father to change by force their insufferable
   position. Sforza could not alone have resisted Naples. No
   dependence was to be placed on the friendship of Venice;
   Lorenzo mediated as long as he lived, but now, on his death,
   Naples was no longer to be restrained. The first thing that
   happened was [Piero de Medici's] alliance with this power, and
   at the same time Ludovico's appeal for help to France, where a
   young and ambitious king had ascended the throne. The death of
   Innocent VIII., and the election of Alexander Borgia to the
   papacy, completed the confusion which was impending. Long
   diplomatic campaigns took place before war actually broke out.
   The matter in question was not the interests of nations—of
   this there was no thought—nor even the caprices of princes
   alone. The nobles of Italy took a passionate concern in these
   disputes. The contests of corresponding intrigues were fought
   out at the French court. France had been robbed of Naples by
   the Aragonese. The exiled Neapolitan barons, French in their
   interests, whose possessions the Arngonese had given to their
   own adherents, ardently seized the idea of returning
   victoriously to their country; the cardinals, hostile to
   Borgia—foremost among these stood the Cardinal of San Piero
   in Vincula, a nephew of the old Sixtus, and the Cardinal
   Ascanio Sforza, Ludovico's brother—urged for war against
   Alexander VI.; the Florentine nobles, anticipating Piero's
   violent measures, hoped for deliverance through the French,
   and advocated the matter at Lyons, where the court was
   stationed, and a whole colony of Florentine families had in
   time settled. Sforza held out the bait of glory and his just
   claims to the old legitimate possession. The Aragonese, on the
   other hand, proposed an accommodation. Spain, who would not
   forsake her belongings, stood at their side; the pope and
   Piero dei Medici adhered to Naples, and the French nobility
   were not in favour of an expedition to Italy. Venice remained
   neutral; still she might gain by the war, and she did not
   dissuade from it; and this opinion, that something was to be
   gained, gradually took possession of all parties, even of
   those who had at first wished to preserve peace. Spain was a
   direct gainer from the first. France ceded to King Ferdinand a
   disputed province, on the condition that he would afford no
   support to his Neapolitan cousins. Sforza, as lord of Genoa,
   wished to have Lucca and Pisa again, with all that belonged to
   them; the Visconti had possessed them of old, and he raised
   their claims afresh. We have said what were the hopes of Piero
   dei Medici [that he should be able to make himself Duke of
   Florence]. Pisa hoped to become free. The pope hoped by his
   alliance with Naples to make the first step towards the
   attainment of the great plans which he cherished for himself
   and his sons; he thought one day of dividing Italy among them.
   The French hoped to conquer Naples, and then to drive away the
   Turks in a vast crusade. As if for a crusade, the king raised
   the loan in his own country, which he required for the
   campaign. The Venetians hoped to bring the coast cities of the
   Adriatic Sea as much as possible under their authority. In the
   autumn of 1494, Charles of France placed himself at the head
   of his knights and mercenary troops, and crossed the Alps;
   whilst his fleet and artillery, the most fearful weapon of the
   French, went by sea from Marseilles to Genoa."

      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 8, chapter 5._

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1503.
   The Papacy in the hands of the Borgias.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
   The invasion by Charles VIII.
   His triumphant march, his easy conquest of Naples,
   and the speedy retreat.
   Effects of the expedition on France and Europe.

   "On the 1st of March [1494] Charles VIII. made his state entry
   into Lyons, to assume the command of the expedition; an
   advanced guard under the Scotchman d'Aubigny was already
   pushing towards the Neapolitan frontier, and the Duke of
   Orleans was at Genoa. The Neapolitans on their side sent the
   Prince of Altamura with 30 galleys towards Genoa, while the
   Duke of Calabria, an inexperienced youth, entered the
   Pontifical States, under the guidance of tried generals. …
   The Pope seemed to have lost his head, and no longer knew what
   course to adopt. … Charles the VIII., having passed the
   Monginevra, entered Asti in the first days of September. He
   soon received intelligence that Don Federico and the
   Neapolitan fleet had been repulsed with heavy losses before
   Porto Venere, and that the Duke of Orleans and his Swiss had
   entered Rapallo, sacked the place, and put all the
   inhabitants, even the sick in the hospital, to the sword,
   thereby striking terror into the Italians, who were
   unaccustomed to carry on war in so sanguinary a fashion. On
   reaching Piacenza, the king learnt that Gio. Galeazzo, whom he
   had recently seen at Pavia, had just died there, poisoned, as
   all men said, by the Moor [Lodovico, the usurping uncle of
   Gio. Galeazzo the young Duke of Milan, was so called], who,
   after celebrating his obsequies at Milan, had entered St.
   Ambrogio, at the hour indicated by his astrologer, to
   consecrate the investiture already granted to him by
   Maximilian, King of the Romans. All this filled the minds of
   the French with suspicion, almost with terror; they were
   beginning to understand the nature of their closest ally's
   good faith.
{1832}
   In fact, while Ludovico with one hand collected men and money
   for their cause, with the other he wove the threads of a
   league intended to drive them from Italy, when the moment
   should arrive. … Nevertheless the fortunes of the French
   prospered rapidly. The Duke of Calabria, having entered
   Romagna, withdrew across the Neapolitan frontier at the first
   glimpse of D'Aubigny's forces; and the bulk of the French
   army, commanded by the King in person, marched through the
   Lunigiana without encountering obstacles of any kind. After
   taking Fivizanno, sacking it, and putting to the sword the
   hundred soldiers who defended it, and part of the inhabitants,
   they pushed on towards Sarzana, through a barren district,
   between the mountains and the sea, where the slightest
   resistance might have proved fatal to them. But the small
   castles, intended for the defence of these valleys, yielded
   one after the other, without any attempt to resist the
   invaders; and hardly had the siege of Sarzana commenced than
   Piero dei Medici arrived, frightened out of his senses,
   surrendered at discretion, and even promised to pay 200,000
   ducats. But on Piero's return to Florence, on the 8th of
   November, he found that the city had risen in revolt, and sent
   ambassadors to the French King on its own account to offer him
   an honourable reception; but that at the same time it was
   making preparations for defence in case of need [see FLORENCE:
   A. D. 1490-1498]. So great was the public indignation that
   Piero took flight to Venice, where his own ambassador,
   Soderini, hardly deigned to look at him, having meanwhile
   declared for the republican government just proclaimed in
   Florence, where everything had been rapidly changed. The
   houses of the Medici and their garden at St. Mark had been
   pillaged, exiles had been recalled and acquitted; a price put
   on Piero's head and that of his brother, the Cardinal. … The
   fabric, so long and so carefully built up by the Medici, was
   now suddenly crumbling into dust. On the 17th November Charles
   VIII., at the head of his formidable army, rode into Florence
   with his lance in rest, believing that that fact sufficed to
   make him master of the city. But the Florentines were armed,
   they had collected 6,000 soldiers within the walls, and they
   knew perfectly well that, from the vantage posts of towers and
   houses, they could easily worst an army scattered through the
   streets. They therefore repulsed the King's insolent
   proposals, and when he threatened to sound his trumpets, Piero
   Capponi, tearing up the offered treaty, replied that the
   Florentines were more ready to ring their bells. Through this
   firmness equitable terms were arranged. The Republic was to
   pay 120,000 florins in three quotas; the fortresses, however,
   were to be speedily restored to her. On the 28th November the
   French left the city, but not without stealing all that
   remained of the collection of antiquities in the Medici
   Palace. … Nevertheless the citizens were thankful to be
   finally delivered alike from old tyrants and new invaders.
   Having reached Rome, Charles VIII., in order to have done with
   the Pope, who now seemed inclined for resistance, pointed his
   guns against the Castle of St. Angelo, and thus matters were
   soon settled. … Scarcely encountering any obstacles, Charles
   led his army on to Naples." Ferdinand I., or Ferrante, had
   died on the 25th of January, 1494, and had been succeeded by
   his son Alfonso II, a prince more cruel and more hated than
   himself. The latter now renounced the throne in favor of his
   son, Ferdinand II., and fled to Sicily. "Ferdinand II., or
   Ferrandino, as he was called, after vainly seeking aid from
   all, even from the Turk, made a fruitless stand at Monte San
   Giovanni, which was taken, destroyed, and all its population
   put to the sword. … Naples rebelled in favour of the French,
   who marched in on the 22d of February [1495]. The following
   day Ferrandino fled to Ischia, then to Messina. And shortly
   the ambassadors of the Italian States appeared to offer
   congratulations to the conqueror. Now at last the Venetians
   were aroused, and having sent their envoys to Milan to know if
   Ludovico were disposed to take up arms to drive out the
   French, they found him not only ready to do so, but full of
   indignation. … He advised that money should be sent to Spain
   and to Maximilian, to induce them to attack France; but added
   that care must be taken not to call them into Italy; 'since
   having already one fever here, we should then have two.' A
   league was in fact concluded between the Venetians, Ludovico,
   the Pope, Spain and Maximilian. … The Neapolitans, soon
   wearied of bad government, had risen in revolt, and Charles
   VIII. after a stay of only 50 days in Naples had to make his
   departure with excessive haste, before every avenue of retreat
   should be cut off, leaving hardly more than 6,000 men in the
   kingdom, and taking with him a numerous army, which however
   only numbered 10,000 real combatants. On the 6th of July a
   pitched battle took place at Fornuovo near the river Taro. The
   allies had assembled about 30,000 men, three-fourths of whom
   were Venetians, the rest composed of Ludovico's soldiers and a
   few Germans sent by Maximilian. … The battle was bloody, and
   it was a disputed question which side obtained the victory;
   but although the Italians were not repulsed, remaining indeed
   masters of the field, the French succeeded in cutting their
   way through, which was the chief object they had in view. …
   Ludovico, taking advantage of the situation, soon made an
   agreement with the French on his own account, without
   concerning himself about the Venetians. … The fortunes of
   the French now declined rapidly in Italy, and all the more
   speedily owing to their bad government in the Neapolitan
   kingdom, and their abominable behaviour towards the few
   friends who had remained faithful to them. … Ferdinand II.,
   with the aid of the Spaniards under Consalvo di Cordova,
   advanced triumphantly through Calabria and entered Naples on
   the 7th of July, 1496. In a short time all the Neapolitan
   fortresses capitulated, and the French who had held them
   returned to their own country, more than decimated and in an
   altogether deplorable condition. On the 6th of October
   Ferdinand II. breathed his last, worn out by the agitation and
   fatigues of the war, and was succeeded by his uncle Don
   Federico, the fifth King [counting Charles VIII. of France]
   who had ascended the Neapolitan throne within the last five
   years. … Naples was now in the absolute power of the
   Spaniards, who were already maturing their iniquitous designs
   upon the kingdom; these, however, were only discovered at a
   later period."

      _P. Villari,
      Machiavelli and his Times,
      volume 1, chapter 4, section 2._

{1833}

   "In spite of its transitory character the invasion of Charles
   VIII. … was a great fact in the history of the
   Renaissance. It was, to use the pregnant phrase of Michelet,
   no less than the revelation of Italy to the nations of the
   North. Like a gale sweeping across a forest of trees in
   blossom, and bearing their fertilizing pollen, after it has
   broken and deflowered their branches, to far distant trees
   that hitherto have bloomed in barrenness, the storm of
   Charles's army carried far and wide through Europe
   thought-dust, imperceptible, but potent to enrich the nations.
   The French, alone, says Michelet, understood Italy. … From
   the Italians the French communicated to the rest of Europe
   what we call the movement of the Renaissance. There is some
   truth in this panegyric of Michelet's. The passage of the army
   of Charles VIII. marks a turning point in modern history, and
   from this epoch dates the diffusion of a spirit of culture
   over Europe."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      History of Savonarola and his Times,
      book 2, chapters 1-3 (volume 1)._

      _J. Dennistoun,
      Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino,
      chapters 14-15 (volume 1)._

      _P. de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      books 7-8._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1503.
   The growing power of Venice and the jealousies excited by it. See

      VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

ITALY: A. D. 1424-1509.
   The French deliverance of Pisa.
   The long struggle and the Florentine reconquest.

      See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Invasion and conquest of the Milanese by Louis XII. of France.
   His claim in right of Valentine Visconti.

   Charles VIII. died in April, 1498, and was succeeded by Louis
   of Orleans, who ascended the throne as Louis XII. On his
   coronation, Louis XII. "assumed, besides his title of King of
   France, the titles of King of Naples and of Jerusalem, and
   Duke of Milan. This was as much as to say that he would pursue
   … a warlike and adventurous policy abroad. … By his policy
   at home Louis XII. deserved and obtained the name of 'Father
   of the People;' by his enterprises and wars abroad he involved
   France still more deeply than Charles VIII. had in that mad
   course of distant, reckless, and incoherent conquests for
   which his successor, Francis I., was destined to pay by
   capture at Pavia and by the lamentable treaty of Madrid, in
   1526, as the price of his release. … Outside of France,
   Milaness (the Milanese district) was Louis XII.'s first
   thought, at his accession, and the first object of his desire.
   He looked upon it as his patrimony: His grandmother, Valentine
   Visconti, widow of that Duke of Orleans who had been
   assassinated at Paris in 1407 by order of John the Fearless,
   Duke of Burgundy, had been the last to inherit the duchy of
   Milan, which the Sforzas, in 1450, had seized. When Charles
   VIII. invaded Italy in 1494, 'Now is the time,' said Louis,
   'to enforce the rights of Valentine Visconti, my grandmother,
   to Milaness.' And he, in fact, asserted them openly, and
   proclaimed his intention of vindicating them so soon as he
   found the moment propitious. When he became king, his chance
   of success was great. The Duke of Milan, Ludovic, the Moor,
   had by his sagacity and fertile mind, by his taste for arts
   and sciences and the intelligent patronage he bestowed upon
   them, by his ability in speaking, and by his facile character,
   obtained in Italy a position far beyond his real power. …
   Ludovic was, nevertheless, a turbulent rascal and a greedy
   tyrant. … He had, moreover, embroiled himself with his
   neighbours, the Venetians, who were watching for an
   opportunity of aggrandizing themselves at his expense." Louis
   XII. promptly concluded a treaty with Venice, which provided
   for the making of war in common upon the Duke of Milan, to
   recover the patrimony of the king—the Venetians to receive
   Cremona and certain forts and territory adjacent as their
   share of the expected spoils. "In the month of August, 1499,
   the French army, with a strength of from 20,000 to 25,000 men,
   of whom 5,000 were Swiss, invaded Milaness. Duke Ludovic
   Sforza opposed to it a force pretty near equal in number, but
   far less full of confidence and of far less valour. In less
   than three weeks the duchy was conquered; in only two cases
   was any assault necessary; all the other places were given up
   by traitors or surrendered without a show of resistance. The
   Venetians had the same success on the eastern frontier of the
   duchy. … Louis was at Lyons when he heard of his army's
   victory in Milaness and of Ludovic Sforza's flight. He was
   eager to go and take possession of his conquest, and, on the
   6th of October, 1499, he made his triumphal entry into Milan
   amidst cries of 'Hurrah! for France.' He reduced the heavy
   imposts established by the Sforzas, revoked the vexatious
   game-laws, instituted at Milan a court of justice analogous to
   the French parliaments, loaded with favours the scholars and
   artists who were the honour of Lombardy, and recrossed the
   Alps at the end of some weeks, leaving as governor of Milaness
   John James Trivulzio, the valiant Condottiere, who, four years
   before, had quitted the service of Ferdinand II., King of
   Naples, for that of Charles VIII. Unfortunately Trivulzio was
   himself a Milanese and of the faction of the Guelphs. He had
   the passions of a partisan and the habits of a man of war; and
   he soon became as tyrannical and as much detested in Milaness
   as Ludovic the Moor had but lately been. A plot was formed in
   favour of the fallen tyrant, who was in Germany expecting it,
   and was recruiting, during expectancy, amongst the Germans and
   Swiss, in order to take advantage of it. On the 25th of
   January, 1500, the insurrection broke out; and two months
   later Ludovic Sforza had once more became master of Milaness,
   where the French possessed nothing but the castle of Milan.
   … Louis XII., so soon as he heard of the Milanese
   insurrection, sent into Italy Louis de la Trémoille, the best
   of his captains, and the Cardinal d' Amboise, his privy
   councillor and his friend. … The campaign did not last long.
   The Swiss who had been recruited by Ludovic and those who were
   in Louis XII.'s service had no mind to fight one another; and
   the former capitulated, surrendered the strong place of
   Novara, and promised to evacuate the country on condition of a
   safe-conduct for themselves and their booty." Ludovic
   attempted flight in disguise, but fell into the hands of the
   French and remained in captivity, at the castle of Loches, in
   Touraine, during the remainder of his life,—eight years.
   "And 'thus was the duchy of Milan, within seven months and a
   half, twice conquered by the French,' says John d' Auton in
   his 'Chronique,' 'and for the nonce was ended the war in
   Lombardy, and the authors thereof were captives and exiles.'"

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages:
      Valentine Visconti; The French claim to Milan._

      _E. Walford,
      Story of the Chevalier Bayard,
      chapters 3-4_.

{1834}

ITALY: 15-16th Centuries.
   Renaissance.
   Intellectual advance and moral decline.

   "At the end of the fifteenth century, Italy was the centre of
   European civilization: while the other nations were still
   plunged in a feudal barbarism which seems almost as far
   removed from all our sympathies as is the condition of some
   American or Polynesian savages, the Italians appear to us as
   possessing habits of thought, a mode of life, political,
   social, and literary institutions, not unlike those of to-day;
   as men whom we can thoroughly understand, whose ideas and
   aims, whose general views, resemble our own in that main,
   indefinable characteristic of being modern. They had shaken
   off the morbid monastic ways of feeling, they had thrown aside
   the crooked scholastic modes of thinking, they had trampled
   under foot the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; no
   symbolical mists made them see things vague, strange, and
   distorted; their intellectual atmosphere was as clear as our
   own, and, if they saw less than we do, what they did see
   appeared to them in its true shape and proportions. Almost for
   the first time since the ruin of antique civilization; they
   could show well-organized, well-defined States; artistically
   disciplined armies; rationally devised laws; scientifically
   conducted agriculture; and widely extended, intelligently
   undertaken commerce. For the first time, also, they showed
   regularly built, healthy, and commodious towns; well-drained
   fields; and, more important than all, hundreds of miles of
   country owned not by feudal lords, but by citizens; cultivated
   not by serfs, but by free peasants. While in the rest of
   Europe men were floundering among the stagnant ideas and
   crumbling institutions of the effete Middle Ages, with but
   vague half-consciousness of their own nature, the Italians
   walked calmly through a life as well arranged as their great
   towns, bold, inquisitive, and sceptical; modern
   administrators, modern soldiers, modern politicians, modern
   financiers, scholars, and thinkers. Towards the end of the
   fifteenth century, Italy seemed to have obtained the
   philosophic, literary, and artistic inheritance of Greece; the
   administrative, legal, and military inheritance of Rome,
   increased threefold by her own strong, original, essentially
   modern activities. Yet, at that very time, and almost in
   proportion as all these advantages developed, the moral
   vitality of the Italians was rapidly decreasing, and a
   horrible moral gangrene beginning to spread: liberty was
   extinguished; public good faith seemed to be dying out; even
   private morality flickered ominously; every free State became
   subject to a despot, always unscrupulous and often infamous;
   warfare became a mere pretext for the rapine and extortions of
   mercenaries; diplomacy grew to be a mere swindle; the
   humanists inoculated literature with the filthiest refuse cast
   up by antiquity; nay, even civic and family ties were
   loosened; assassinations and fratricides began to abound, and
   all law, human and divine, to be set at defiance. … The men
   of the Renaissance had to pay a heavy price for …
   intellectual freedom and self-cognizance, which they not only
   enjoyed themselves, but transmitted to the rest of the world;
   the price was the loss of all moral standard, of all fixed
   public feeling. They had thrown aside all accepted rules and
   criteria, they had cast away all faith in traditional
   institutions, they had destroyed and could not yet rebuild. In
   their instinctive and universal disbelief in all that had been
   taught them, they lost all respect for opinion, for rule, for
   what had been called right and wrong. Could it be otherwise?
   Had they not discovered that what had been called right had
   often been unnatural, and what had been called wrong often
   natural? Moral teachings, remonstrances, and judgments
   belonged to that dogmatism from which they had broken loose;
   to those schools and churches where the foolish and the
   unnatural had been taught and worshiped; to those priests and
   monks who themselves most shamefully violated their teachings.
   To profess morality was to be a hypocrite; to reprobate others
   was to be narrow-minded. There was so much error mixed up with
   truth that truth had to share the discredit of error."

      _Vernon Lee,
      Euphorion,
      volume 1, pages 27-29, 47-48._

   "The conditions under which the Italians performed their task
   in the Renaissance were such as seem at first sight
   unfavourable to any great achievement. Yet it is probable
   that, the end in view being the stimulation of mental
   activity; no better circumstances than they enjoyed could have
   been provided. Owing to a series of adverse accidents, and
   owing also to their own instinctive preference for local
   institutions, they failed to attain the coherence and the
   centralised organisation which are necessary to a nation as we
   understand that word. Their dismemberment among rival
   communities proved a fatal source of political and military
   weakness, but it developed all their intellectual energies by
   competition to the utmost. At the middle of the fifteenth
   century their communes had lost political liberty, and were
   ruled by despots. Martial spirit declined. Wars were carried
   on by mercenaries; and the people found itself in a state of
   practical disarmament, when the neighboring nations quarrelled
   for the prize of those rich provinces. At the same time
   society underwent a rapid moral deterioration. When
   Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,' he did
   not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy; an
   irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent and
   materialistic middle class; an idle aristocracy, excluded from
   politics and unused to arms; a public given up to pleasure and
   money-getting; a multitude of scholars, devoted to trifles,
   and vitiated by studies which clashed with the ideals of
   Christianity—from such elements in the nation proceeded a
   widely-spread and ever-increasing degeneracy. Public energy,
   exhausted by the civil wars and debilitated by the arts of the
   tyrants, sank deep and deeper into the lassitude of
   acquiescent lethargy. Religion expired in laughter, irony and
   licence. Domestic simplicity yielded to vice, whereof the
   records are precise and unmistakable. The virile virtues
   disappeared. What survived of courage assumed the forms of
   ruffianism, ferocity and treasonable daring. Still,
   simultaneously with this decline in all the moral qualities
   which constitute a powerful people, the Italians brought their
   arts and some departments of their literature to a perfection
   that can only be paralleled by ancient Greece. The anomaly
   implied in this statement is striking; but it is revealed to
   us by evidence too overwhelming to be rejected. … It was
   through art that the creative instincts of the people found
   their true and adequate channel of expression.
{1835}
   Paramount over all other manifestations of the epoch,
   fundamental beneath all, penetrative to the core of all, is
   the artistic impulse. The slowly self-consolidating life of a
   great kingdom, concentrating all elements of national
   existence by the centripetal force of organic unity, was
   wanting. Commonwealths and despotisms, representing a more
   imperfect stage of political growth, achieved completion and
   decayed. But art survived this disintegration of the medieval
   fabric; and in art the Italians found the cohesion denied them
   as a nation. While speaking thus of art, it is necessary to
   give a wide extension to that word. It must be understood to
   include literature. … We are justified in regarding the
   literary masterpieces of the sixteenth century as the fullest
   and most representative expression of the Italian temperament
   at the climax of its growth. The literature of the golden age
   implies humanism, implies painting. … It is not only
   possible but right to speak of Italy collectively when we
   review her work in the Renaissance. Yet it should not be
   forgotten that Italy at this time was a federation, presenting
   upon a miniature scale the same diversities in her component
   parts as the nations of Europe do now. … At the beginning of
   such a review, we cannot fail to be struck with the
   predominance of Florence. The superiority of the Tuscans was
   threefold. In the first place, they determined the development
   of art in all its branches. In the second place, they gave a
   language to Italy, which, without obliterating the local
   dialects, superseded them in literature when the right moment
   for intellectual community arrived. That moment, in the third
   place, was rendered possible by the humanistic movement, which
   began at Florence. … What the Lombards and Venetians
   produced in fine art and literature was of a later birth. Yet
   the novelists of Lombardy, the Latin lyrists of Garda, the
   school of romantic and dramatic poets at Ferrara, the group of
   sculptors and painters assembled in Milan by the Sforza
   dynasty, the maccaronic Muse of Mantua, the unrivalled
   magnificence of painting at Venice, the transient splendour of
   the Parmese masters, the wit of Modena, the learning of the
   princes of Mirandola and Carpi, must be catalogued among the
   most brilliant and characteristic manifestations of Italian
   genius. In pure literature Venice contributed but little. …
   Her place, as the home of Aldo's Greek press, and as the
   refuge for adventurers like Aretino and Folengo, when the rest
   of Italy was yielding to reactionary despotism, has to be
   commemorated. … The Romans who advanced Italian culture,
   were singularly few. The work of Rome was done almost
   exclusively by aliens, drawn for the most part from Tuscany
   and Lombardy. After Frederick II.'s brilliant reign, the
   Sicilians shared but little in the intellectual activity of
   the nation."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Italian Literature,
      chapter 17._

ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty for the partition of Naples between Louis
   XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

   "In the spring of 1501, the French army was ready to pursue
   its march to Naples. King Frederick, alarmed at the storm
   which was gathering round his head, had some months before
   renewed the propositions formerly made by his father Ferdinand
   to Charles VIII.; namely, to acknowledge himself a feudatory
   of France, to pay an annual tribute, and to pledge several
   maritime towns as security for the fulfilment of these
   conditions. Louis, however, would not hear of these liberal
   offers, although Ferdinand the Catholic [of Aragon] undertook
   to guarantee the payment of the tribute proffered by
   Frederick, and strongly remonstrated against the contemplated
   expedition of the French King. Ferdinand finding that he could
   not divert Louis from his project, proposed to him to divide
   Naples between them, and a partition was arranged by a treaty
   concluded between the two monarchs at Granada, November 11th,
   1500. Naples, the Terra di Lavoro, and the Abruzzi were
   assigned to Louis, with the title of King of Naples and
   Jerusalem; while Ferdinand was to have Calabria and Apulia
   with the title of Duke." This perfidious arrangement was kept
   secret, of course, from Frederick. "Meanwhile the forces of
   Ferdinand, under Gonsalvo of Cordova [the 'Great Captain,' as
   he was styled after his Italian campaign], were admitted as
   friends into the Neapolitan fortresses, which they afterwards
   held as enemies. Frederick opened to them without suspicion
   his ports and towns, and thus became the instrument of his own
   ruin. The unhappy Frederick had in vain looked around for
   assistance. He had paid the Emperor Maximilian 40,000 ducats
   to make a diversion in his favour by attacking Milan, but
   Maximilian was detached from the Neapolitan alliance by a
   counter bribe, and consented to prolong the truce with France.
   Frederick had then had recourse to Sultan Bajazet II., with as
   little effect; and this application only served to throw an
   odium on his cause. … The French army, which did not exceed
   13,000 men, began its march towards Naples about the end of
   May, 1501, under the command of Stuart d'Aubigny, with Cæsar
   Borgia [son of Pope Alexander VI.] for his lieutenant. When it
   arrived before Rome, June 25th, the French and Spanish
   ambassadors acquainted the Pope with the treaty of Granada,
   and the contemplated partition of Naples, in which the
   suzerainty of this kingdom was guaranteed to the Holy See; a
   communication which Alexander received with more surprise than
   displeasure, and he proceeded at once to invest the Kings of
   France and Aragon with the provinces which they respectively
   claimed. Attacked in front by the French, in the rear by
   Gonsalvo, Frederick did not venture to take the field. He
   cantoned his troops in Naples, Averso, and Capua, of which the
   last alone made any attempt at defence. It was surprised by
   the French while in the act of treating for a capitulation
   (July 24th), and was subjected to the most revolting cruelty;
   7,000 of the male inhabitants were massacred in the streets;
   the women were outraged; and forty of the handsomest reserved
   for Borgia's harem at Rome; where they were in readiness to
   amuse the Court at the extraordinary and disgusting fete given
   at the fourth marriage of Lucretia. Rather than expose his
   subjects to the horrors of a useless war, Frederick entered
   into negociations with d'Aubigny, with the view of
   surrendering himself to Louis XII. … In October, 1501, he
   sailed for France with a small squadron, which remained to him.
{1836}
   In return for his abandonment of the provinces assigned to the
   French King, he was invested with the county of Maine, and a
   life pension of 30,000 ducats, on condition that he should not
   attempt to quit France; a guard was set over him to enforce
   the latter proviso, and this excellent prince died in
   captivity in 1504. Meanwhile Gonsalvo of Cordova was
   proceeding with the reduction of Calabria and Apulia. … The
   Spaniards entered Taranto March 1st, 1502; the other towns of
   southern Italy were soon reduced, and the Neapolitan branch of
   the House of Aragon fell for ever, after reigning 65 years. In
   the autumn of 1501, Louis had entered into negociations with
   the Emperor, in order to obtain formal investiture of the
   Duchy of Milan. With this view, Louis's daughter Claude, then
   only two years of age, was affianced to Charles [afterwards
   the Emperor, Charles V.], grandson of Maximilian, the infant
   child of the Archduke Philip and Joanna of Aragon. A treaty
   was subsequently signed at Trent, October 13th, 1501, by
   Maximilian and the Cardinal d'Amboise, to which the Spanish
   sovereigns find the Archduke Philip were also parties. By this
   instrument Louis engaged, in return for the investiture of
   Milan, to recognise the pretensions of the House of Austria to
   Hungary and Bohemia, and to second Maximilian in an expedition
   which he contemplated against the Turks. It was at this
   conference that those schemes against Venice began to be
   agitated, which ultimately produced the League of Cambray. The
   treaty between Louis and Ferdinand for the partition of Naples
   was so loosely drawn, that it seemed purposely intended to
   produce the quarrels which occurred." Disputes arose as to the
   possession of a couple of provinces, and the Spaniards were
   driven out. "In the course of 1502 the Spaniards were deprived
   of everything, except Barletta and a few towns on the coast of
   Bari. It was in the combats round this place that Bayard, by
   his deeds of courage and generosity, won his reputation as the
   model of chivalry, and became the idol of the French
   soldiery." The crafty and unscrupulous king of Aragon now
   amused Louis with the negotiation of a treaty for the
   relinquishment of the whole Neapolitan domain to the lately
   affianced infants, Charles of Austria and Claude of France,
   while he diligently reinforced the "Great Captain." Then
   "Gonsalvo suddenly resumed the offensive with extraordinary
   vigour and rapidity, and within a week two decisive battles
   were fought"—at Seminara, in Calabria, April 21, 1503, and at
   Cerignola, near Barletta, April 28. In the last named battle
   the French army was dispersed and almost destroyed. On the
   14th of May, Gonsalvo entered Naples, and by the end of July
   the French had completely evacuated the Neapolitan territory.
   The king of France made prompt preparations for vigorous war,
   not only in Naples but in Spain itself, sending two armies to
   the Pyrenees and one across the Alps. The campaign of the
   latter was ruined by Cardinal d'Amboise, who stopped its march
   near Rome, to support his candidacy for the papal chair, just
   vacated by the death of Alexander VI. Malaria made havoc in
   the ranks of the French, and they were badly commanded. They
   advanced to the seat of war in October, and forced the passage
   of the Garigliano, November 9. "Here their progress was
   arrested. … The seasons themselves were hostile to the
   French; heavy rains set in with a constancy quite unusual in
   that climate; and the French soldiers perished by hundreds in
   the mud and swamps of the Garigliano. The Spanish army,
   encamped near Sessa, was better supplied and better
   disciplined; and at length, after two months of inaction,
   Gonsalvo, having received some reinforcements, assumed the
   offensive, and in his turn crossed the river. The French,
   whose quarters were widely dispersed, were not prepared for
   this attack, and attempted to fall back upon Gaeta; but their
   retreat soon became a disorderly flight; many threw down their
   arms without striking a blow; and hence the affair has
   sometimes been called the rout of the Garigliano [December 29,
   1503]. Peter de' Medici, who was following the French army,
   perished in this retreat. … Very few of the French army
   found their way back to France. Gaeta surrendered at the first
   summons, January 1st, 1504. This was the most important of all
   Gonsalvo's victories, as it completed the conquest of Naples.
   The two attacks on Spain had also miscarried. … A truce of
   five months was concluded, November 15th, which was
   subsequently converted into a peace of three years."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514,
      book 1, chapter 4,
      and book 2, chapter 1._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapters 8-9 (volume 4)._

      _M. J. Quintana,
      The Great Captain
      (Lives of Celebrated Spaniards) _

      _G. P. R. James,
      Memoirs of Great Commanders,
      volume 1: Gonzalvez de Cordoba._

      _L. Larchey,
      History of Bayard,
      book 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.
   The Treaties of Blois.
   Tortuous diplomacy of Louis XII.
   His double renunciation of Naples.

   "There was danger [to Louis XII. of France] that the loss of
   the Milanese should follow that of the kingdom of Naples.
   Maximilian was already preparing to assert his imperial rights
   beyond the Alps, and Gonsalvo de Cordova was marching toward
   the northern part of the peninsula. Louis XII. divided and
   disarmed his enemies by three treaties, signed at Blois on the
   same day (1504). By the first Louis and Maximilian agreed to
   attack Venice, and to divide the spoil; by the second Louis
   promised the king of the Romans 200,000 francs in return for
   the investiture of the Milanese; by the third he renounced the
   kingdom of Naples in favor of Maximilian's grandson Charles,
   who was to marry Claude,' daughter of Louis XII., and receive
   as her dowry three French provinces,—Burgundy, Brittany, and
   Blois. A more disastrous agreement could not have been made.
   Charles was to obtain by inheritance from his father, Philip
   the Handsome, the Netherlands; from his mother, Castile; from
   his paternal grandfather, Austria; from his maternal
   grandfather, Aragon. And now he was assured of Italy, and
   France was to be dismembered for him. This was virtually
   giving him the empire of Europe. France protested, and Louis
   XII. seized the first occasion to respond to her wishes. He
   found it in 1505, when Ferdinand the Catholic married Germaine
   de Foix, niece of Louis XII. Louis by treaty made a second
   cession of his rights over the kingdom of Naples to his niece,
   thus breaking one of the principal conditions of his treaty
   with Maximilian. He convoked the States-General at Tours in
   order openly to break the others (1506).
{1837}
   The Assembly declared that the fundamental law of the state
   did not permit alienations of the domains of the crown, and
   besought the king to give his daughter in marriage to his heir
   presumptive, Francis, Duke of Angoulême, in order to insure
   the integrity of the territory and the independence of France.
   Louis XII. found little difficulty in acceding to their
   request. Maximilian and Ferdinand were at the time unable to
   protest."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of France,
      chapter 38._

ITALY: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.
   The continental provinces of the Republic torn away.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   Dissolution of the League of Cambrai and formation of the Holy
   League against France.
   The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.
   Restoration of the Medici.
   Recovery of Venetian territories.

   As the League of Cambrai began to weaken and fall in pieces,
   the vigorous republic of Venice "came forth again, retook
   Padua, and kept it through a long and terrible siege, at last
   forcing the Emperor to withdraw and send back his French
   allies. The Venetians recovered Vicenza, and threatened
   Verona; Maximilian, once more powerless, appealed to France to
   defend his conquests. Thus things stood [1510] when Julius II.
   made peace with Venice and began to look round him for allies
   against Louis XII. He negotiated with the foreign kings; but
   that was only in order thereby to neutralise their influence,
   sowing discord among them; it was on the Swiss mercenaries
   that he really leant. Now that he had gained all he wanted on
   the northern frontier of the States of the Church, he thought
   that he might safely undertake the high duty of protecting
   Italy against the foreigner: he would accomplish what Cæsar
   Borgia had but dreamed of doing, he would chase the Barbarian
   from the sacred soil of culture. … He 'thanked God,' when he
   heard of the death of the Cardinal of Amboise, 'that now he
   was Pope alone!' … He at once set himself to secure the
   Swiss, and found a ready and capable agent in Matthew
   Schynner, Bishop of Sion in the Valais. … Bishop Schynner
   was rewarded for this traffic with a cardinal's hat. And now,
   deprived by death of the guiding hand [of Cardinal d'Amboise],
   Louis XII. began to follow a difficult and dangerous line of
   policy: he called a National Council at Tours, and laid before
   it, as a case of conscience, the question whether he might
   make war on the Pope. The Council at once declared for the
   King, distinguishing, as well they might under Julius II.,
   between the temporal and the spiritual in the Papacy, and
   declaring that any papal censure that might be launched would
   be null and void. Above all, an appeal was made to a General
   Council. … Meanwhile war went on in Italy. A broadly-planned
   attack on the Milanese, on Genoa, and Ferrara, concerted by
   Julius II. with the Venetians and Swiss, had come to nothing.
   Now the warlike pontiff—one knows his grim face from
   Raphael's picture, and his nervous grasp of the arms of his
   chair, as though he were about to spring forward into
   action—took the field in person. At Bologna he fell ill; they
   thought he would die; and Chaumont of Amboise was marching up
   with the French at his heels to surround and take him there.
   But by skilful treating with the French general Julius gained
   time, till a strong force of Venetians had entered Bologna.
   Then the Pope rose from his sick-bed, in the dead of winter,
   1511, and marched out to besiege Mirandola," which
   capitulated. "Bayard soon after attacked him, and all but took
   him prisoner. A congress at Mantua followed: but the Pope
   sternly refused to make terms with the French: the war must go
   on. Then Louis took a dangerous step. He convoked an
   ecclesiastical council at Pisa, and struck a medal to express
   his contempt and hatred for Julius II. … The Pope had gone
   back to Rome, and Bologna had opened her gates to the French;
   the coming council, which should depose Julius, was proclaimed
   through Northern Italy. But, though the moment seemed
   favourable, nothing but a real agreement of the European
   powers could give success to such a step. And how far men were
   from such an agreement Louis was soon to learn; for Julius,
   finding that the French did not invade the States of the
   Church, resumed negociations with such success that in October
   1511 a 'Holy League' was formed between the Pope, Venice,
   Ferdinand of Aragon, and Henry VIII. of England. Maximilian
   wavered and doubted; the Swiss were to be had—on payment. At
   first Louis showed a bold front; in spite of this strange
   whirl of the wheel of politics from the League of Cambrai to
   the Holy League, he persevered, giving the command of Milan to
   his nephew, Gaston of Foix, Duke of Nemours, a man of 23
   years, the most promising of his younger captains. He relieved
   Bologna, seized Brescia, and pillaged it [1512]; and then
   pushed on to attack Ravenna; it is said that the booty of
   Brescia was so great that the French soldiers, having made
   their fortunes, deserted in crowds, and left the army much
   weakened. With this diminished force Gaston found himself
   caught between the hostile walls of Ravenna, and a relieving
   force of Spaniards, separated from him only by a canal. The
   Spaniards, after their usual way of warfare, made an
   entrenched camp round their position. The French first tried
   to take the city by assault; but being driven back, determined
   to attack the Spanish camp." They made the assault [on Easter
   Day, 1512] and took the camp, with great slaughter; but in his
   reckless pursuit of the retreating enemy Gaston de Foix was
   slain. "The death of the young Prince more than balanced the
   great victory of the day: for with Gaston, as Guicciardini
   says, perished all the vigour of the French army. … Though
   Ravenna was taken, the French could no longer support
   themselves. Their communications with Milan were threatened by
   the Swiss: they left garrisons in the strong places and fell
   back. The council of Pisa also had to take refuge at Milan.
   When the Swiss came down from their mountain-passes to restore
   the Sforza dynasty, the harassed council broke up from Milan,
   and fled to Lyons; there it lingered a while, but it had
   become contemptible; anon it vanished into thin air. The Pope
   retook Bologna, Parma, Piacenza; the Medici returned to
   Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569]; Maximilian Sforza
   was re-established [see MILAN: A. D. 1512], while the Grisons
   Leagues received the Valteline as their reward: the English
   annoyed the coast without any decisive result. … Ferdinand
   seized Navarre, which henceforward became Spanish to the
   Pyrenees.
{1838}
   Before winter, not one foot of Italian soil remained to the
   French. Julius II., the formidable centre of the Alliance,
   died at this moment (1513). … The allies secured the
   election of a Medicean Pope, Leo X., a pontiff hostile to
   France, and certain not to reverse that side of his
   predecessor's policy. … Louis, finding himself menaced on
   every side, suddenly turned about and offered his friendship
   to Venice. … Natural tendencies overbore all resentments on
   both sides, and a treaty between them both guaranteed the
   Milanese to Louis and gave him a strong force of Venetian
   soldiers. Meanwhile, Ferdinand had come to terms with
   Maximilian and boyish Henry VIII., who … had framed a scheme
   for the overthrow of France. The French king, instead of
   staying at home to defend his frontiers, was eager to retake
   Milan, and to join hands with the Venetians. … But the Swiss
   round Maximilian Sforza defended him without fear or
   treachery; and catching the French troops under La Trémoille
   in a wretched position not far from Novara, attacked and
   utterly defeated them (1513). The French withdrew beyond the
   Alps; the Venetians were driven off with great loss by the
   Spaniards, who ravaged their mainland territories down to the
   water's edge. For the short remainder of his life Louis XII.
   had no leisure again to try his fortunes in Italy: he was too
   busy elsewhere."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Villari,
      Life and Times of Machiavelli,
      book 1, chapters 12-14 (volume 3)._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 5, chapters 15-16 (volume 4)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
      from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapters 37-38 (volume 2)._

      _L. Larchey,
      History of Bayard,
      book 2, chapters 21-44._

      H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1515-1516.
   Invasion and reconquest of Milan by Francis I.
   His treaty with the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

ITALY: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Abortive attempt against Milan by the Emperor, Maximilian.
   His peace with Venice and surrender of Verona.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

ITALY: A. D. 1520-1542.
   Early Reformation movements
   and their want of popular support.
   The Council of Trent.

         See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ITALY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Re-expulsion of the French from Milan.
   The treason of the Constable Bourbon.
   His appointment to the command of the Imperial army.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double dealings of Pope Clement VII.
   Invasion of Milanese by Francis I. and his defeat and capture
   at Pavia.
   The Holy League against Charles V.
   The attack on Rome by Constable Bourbon.

   Giulio de' Medici, natural son of Guiliano de' Medici, and
   cousin of Leo X., had succeeded Adrian VI. in the Papacy in
   1523, under the name of Clement VII. "Nothing could have been
   more unfortunate than the new Pope's first steps on the
   zig-zag path which he proposed to follow. Becoming alarmed at
   the preponderating power of Charles [the Fifth, Emperor, King
   of Spain and Naples; Duke of Burgundy, and ruler of all the
   Netherlands, in 1524 be entered into a league with Francis
   [the First, king of France];

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   but scarcely had this been concluded when the memorable battle
   of Pavia resulting in the entire defeat of the French, on the
   24th of February, 1525, and the captivity of the French king,
   frightened him back again into seeking anew the friendship of
   Charles, in April of that year.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525

   Each of these successive treaties was of course duly sworn to
   and declared inviolable; but it could hardly be expected that
   he who exercised the power of annulling other men's oaths
   would submit to be bound by his own, when the observance of
   them became inconvenient. Clement accordingly was not
   prevented by the solemn treaty of April, 1525, from conspiring
   against his new ally in the July following. The object of this
   conspiracy was to induce Ferdinando Francesco d'Avalos,
   Marquis of Pescara, who commanded the army of Charles V.
   before Milan, to revolt against his sovereign, and join the
   Italians in an attempt to put an end for ever to Spanish sway
   in Italy. … But the Spanish general had no sooner secured
   clear evidence of the plans of the conspirators, by pretending
   to listen to their proposals, than he reported the whole to
   Charles. The miscarriage of this scheme, and the exposure
   consequent upon it, necessarily threw the vacillating and
   terrified Pontiff once more into the arms of Francis. 'The
   Most Christian'—as the old Italian historians often
   elliptically call the Kings of France—obtained his release
   from his Madrid prison by promising on oath, on the 17th of
   January, 1526, all that Charles, driving a hard bargain, chose
   to demand of him.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

   And Clement hastened to prove the sincerity of his renewed
   friendship by a professional contribution to the success of
   their new alliance, in the welcome shape of a plenary
   absolution from all observance of the oaths so sworn. … On
   the 22nd of May following [at Cognac], the Pope entered into a
   formal league with Francis [called 'Holy' for the reason that
   the Pope was a party to it]. Venice joined her troops to those
   of the Ecclesiastical States, and they marched together to the
   support of the Milanese, who had risen in revolt against the
   Emperor. Assistance had also been promised by Henry of
   England, who had stipulated, however, that he should not be
   named as a party to the alliance, but only considered as its
   protector. This was the most strenuous and most united attempt
   Italy had yet made to rid herself of the domination of the
   stranger, and patriotic hopes beat high in several Italian
   hearts. … It may be easily imagined that the 'Most Catholic'
   monarch [Charles V.] felt towards Clement at this time in a
   manner which led him to distinguish very nicely between the
   infallible head of the universal Church and the sovereign of
   the Ecclesiastical States. … Though he retained the utmost
   respect and reverence for the vicegerent of heaven, he thought
   that a little correction administered to the sovereign of Rome
   would not be amiss, and nothing could be easier than to find
   means ready to his hand for the infliction of it. The Colonnas
   were of course ready for a rebellion on the slightest
   encouragement. … So when Don Ugo di Moncada, Charles's
   general at Naples, proposed to the Colonnas to join him in a
   little frolic at Clement's expense, the noble and most
   reverend members of that powerful family jumped at the
   proposal. … The united forces of the Viceroy and the
   Colonnas accordingly one morning entered Rome, altogether
   without opposition, and marched at once to the Vatican.
{1839}
   They completely sacked, not only the Pope's palace, and the
   residences of many gentlemen and prelates, but also, says the
   historian [Varchi], 'with unheard-of avarice and impiety,'
   robbed the sacristy of St. Peter of everything it contained.
   Clement had barely time to escape into the castle of St.
   Angelo; but as he found there neither soldiers nor ammunition,
   nor even food for above three days, … he consented to a
   treaty by which the Pope agreed to pardon the Colonnas freely
   for all they had done against him; to take no steps to revenge
   himself on them; to withdraw his troops from Lombardy; and to
   undertake nothing in any way, or under any pretext, against
   the Emperor." As a hostage for the fulfilment of this treaty,
   Pope Clement gave his dear friend Filippo Strozzi; but no
   sooner was he delivered from his captors than he hired seven
   "black companies" of adventurers and 2,000 Swiss, and began a
   furious war of extermination upon the Colonnas and all their
   dependents. At the same time he wrote private letters to the
   heads of his "Holy League," "warning them to pay no heed to
   any statement respecting a treaty made by him with the
   Emperor, and assuring them of his intention to carry on the
   war with the utmost energy." A little later, however, this
   remarkable Holy Father found it convenient to make another
   treaty with the Viceroy of Naples, for the release of his
   friend Strozzi, which bound him still more to friendly
   relations with the Emperor. This latter treaty, of March,
   1527, "would seem in some sort to imply the reconciliation
   once again of the Pope and the Emperor." But Charles had
   already set forces in motion for the chastisement of the
   faithless Pope and his allies, which either he could not or
   did not care to arrest. "The Constable Bourbon, whom the gross
   injustice of Francis I., and the intolerable persecution of
   his infamous mother, Louise de Savoie, had driven to abandon
   his country and allegiance [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], …
   was now … marching southwards, with the imperial troops, to
   chastise the different members of the League against the
   Emperor, which Clement, as has been seen, had formed. George
   Frundsberg, a German leader of reputation, had also crossed
   the Alps with 15,000 men,—'all Lutherans and Lanzknechts,' as
   the Italians write with horror and dismay,—and had joined
   these forces to the Spaniards under Bourbon. … The combined
   force was in all respects more like a rabble rout of brigands
   and bandits than an army; and was assuredly such as must, even
   in those days, have been felt to be a disgrace to any
   sovereign permitting them to call themselves his soldiers.
   Their pay was, as was often the case with the troops of
   Charles V., hopelessly in arrear, and discipline was of course
   proportionably weak among them. … The progress southward of
   this bandit army … filled the cities exposed to their inroad
   with terror and dismay. They had passed like a destroying
   locust swarm over Bologna and Imola, and crossing the
   Apennines, which separate Umbria from Tuscany, had descended
   into the valley of the Arno not far from Arezzo. Florence and
   Rome both trembled. On which would the storm burst? That was
   the all-absorbing question. Pope Clement, with his usual
   avarice-blinded imbecility, had, immediately on concluding the
   above-mentioned treaty with the Neapolitan viceroy, discharged
   all his troops except a body-guard of about 600 men. Florence
   was nearly in as defenceless a position"; but a small army of
   the League, under the Duke of Urbino, was at Incisa, and it
   was "probably the presence of this army, little as it had
   hitherto done to impede the progress of the enemy, which
   decided Bourbon eventually to determine on marching towards
   Rome. It seems doubtful how far they were in so doing,
   executing the orders, or carrying out the wishes, of the
   Emperor. … Upon the whole we are warranted in supposing that
   Bourbon and Frundsberg would hardly have ventured on the
   course they took, if they had not had reason to believe that
   it would not much displease their master. … On the 5th of
   May [1527] Bourbon arrived beneath the walls of Rome. … On
   the evening of the 6th of May the city was stormed and given
   over to the unbridled cupidity and brutality of the soldiers.
   … Bourbon himself had fallen in the first moments of the
   attack."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 10, chapter 3 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      Filippo Strozzi,
      chapter 7._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 4 (volume 2)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 4, chapters 1-3._

ITALY: A. D. 1527.
   The Sack of Rome by the Spanish and German Imperialists.

   "Bourbon fell at the first assault; but by evening the Vatican
   suburb was in the hands of the enemy. Clement, who was even
   best informed of the state of things, had not anticipated such
   an issue. He scarcely saved himself by flight from the Vatican
   to the castle of St. Angelo, whither the fugitive population
   hurried, as the shipwrecked crew of an entire fleet hastens to
   a single boat which cannot receive them. In the midst of the
   thronging stream of men, the portcullis was lowered. Whoever
   remained without was lost. Benvenuto Cellini was at that time
   in Rome, and was among the defenders of the walls. He boasted
   that his ball had destroyed Bourbon. He stole fortunately into
   the citadel, before it was closed, and entered the Pope's
   service as bombardier. Even at this last moment, Clement might
   have saved Rome itself, which, situated on the opposite shore
   of the river, had not yet been entered by the enemy. They
   offered to spare it for a ransom; but finding this too high,
   and awaiting hourly Urbino's army, to which, though nothing
   was yet to be seen of it, he looked as a deliverer in the time
   of need, he would hear nothing of it. And thus the undefended
   city fell into the hands of the imperialists. Almost without
   resistance they entered Trastevere, a small quarter of the
   city lying to the west of the Tiber; and then crossing the
   bridges, which no one had demolished, they pressed forwards
   into the heart of Rome. It was the depth of the night.
   Benvenuto Cellini was stationed on the tower of the castle of
   St. Angelo, at the foot of the colossal angel, and saw the
   flames bursting forth in the darkness, and heard the sorrowful
   cry all around. For it was late before the soldiers began to
   cast off all restraint. They had entered quietly. The Germans
   stood in battalions. But when they saw the Spaniards broken up
   and plundering, the desire was aroused in them also; and now a
   spirit of emulation appeared, as to which nation could outdo
   the other in cruelty. The Spaniards, it is asserted by
   impartial Italians, carried the day.
{1840}
   There had been no siege, no bombardment, no flight of any
   great extent; but as if the earth had opened, and had
   disgorged a legion of devils, so suddenly came these hosts.
   Everything was in a moment abandoned to them. We must
   endeavour to conceive what kind of men these German soldiers
   were. They formed an intermediate class between the prime and
   the refuse of the people. Gathered together by the hope of
   booty, indifferent what end was assigned them, rendered wild
   by hunger and tardy pay, left without a master after the death
   of their commander, they found themselves unrestrained in the
   most luxurious city of the world—a city abounding with gold
   and riches, and at the same time decried for centuries in
   Germany, as the infernal nest of the popes, who lived there as
   incarnate devils, in the midst of their Babylonian doings. The
   opinion that the pope of Rome, and Clement VII. in particular,
   was the devil, prevailed not only in Germany, but in Italy and
   in Rome the people called him so. In the midst of plague and
   famine he had doubled the taxes and raised the price of bread.
   What with the Romans, however, was an invective arising from
   indignation, was an article of faith among the Germans. They
   believed they had to do with the real antichrist, whose
   destruction would be a benefit to Christendom. We must
   remember, if we would understand this fury of the German
   soldiery, in whose minds, as in those of all Germans, Lutheran
   ideas at that time prevailed, how Rome had been preached and
   written upon in the north. The city was represented to people
   as a vast abyss of sin; the men as villains, from the lowest
   up to the cardinals; the women as courtesans; the business of
   all as deceit, theft, and murder; and the robbing and deluding
   of men that had for centuries been emanating from Rome, was
   regarded as the universal disease from which the world was
   languishing. Thither for centuries the gold of Germany had
   flowed; there had emperors been humbled or poisoned; from Rome
   every evil had sprung. And thus, while satiating themselves
   with rapine and murder, they believed a good work was being
   done for the welfare of Christendom, and for the avenge of
   Germany. Never, however—this we know—does the nature of man
   exhibit itself more beast-like, than when it becomes furious
   for the sake of ideas of the highest character. Before the
   castle of St. Angelo, which, carefully fortified with walls
   and fosses, alone afforded resistance, the German soldiers
   proclaimed Martin Luther as pope. Luther's name was at that
   time a war-cry against pope and priestcraft. The rude
   multitude surmised not what Luther desired when he attacked
   the papacy. In front of St. Peter's church, they represented
   an imitation of the papal election with the sacred garments
   and utensils. They compelled one priest to give extreme
   unction to a dying mule. One protested that he would not rest
   until he had consumed a piece of the pope's flesh. It is true,
   Italians for the most part relate this, but the German reports
   themselves do not deny the excessive barbarity which was
   permitted. Ten millions of precious metal was carried away.
   How much blood did this money involve, and what was done to
   those from whom it was taken? Fewer were put to death than
   were plundered, says one of the records, but what does that
   imply? It is true, the Germans often quarrelled with the
   Spaniards, because the horrors which they saw them practise
   were too terrible for them. Otherwise the sparing of human
   life was less an act of clemency than of covetousness.
   Prisoners of war were at that time regarded as slaves; they
   were carried away as personal property, or a ransom was
   extorted. … This system was carried to a great pitch in
   Rome. The possessors of palaces were obliged to purchase their
   ransom, the Spanish cardinals as well as the Italian—no
   difference was made. Thus at least escape was possible. …
   And as the people were treated, so were the things. Upon the
   inlaid marble floor of the Vatican, where the Prince of Orange
   took up his abode—the command of the army devolving upon him
   after Bourbon's death—the soldiers lighted their fire. The
   splendid stained glass windows, executed by William of
   Marseilles, were broken for the sake of the lead. Raphael's
   tapestries were pronounced excellent booty; in the paintings
   on the walls the eyes were put out; and valuable documents
   were given as straw to the horses which stood in the Sistine
   Chapel. The statues in the streets were thrown down; the
   images of the Mother of God in the churches were broken to
   pieces. For six months the city thus remained in the power of
   the soldiery, who had lost all discipline, Pestilence and
   famine appeared. Rome had more than 90,000 inhabitants under
   Leo X.; when Clement VII. returned a year after the conquest,
   scarcely a third of that number then existed—poor, famished
   people, who had remained behind, because they knew not whither
   to turn. All this lay on the conscience of the man who now for
   months had been condemned to look down upon this misery from
   the castle of St. Angelo, in which the Spaniards held him
   completely blockaded, and where pestilence and want of
   provisions appeared just as much as down below in Rome. At
   last, after waiting day after day, he saw Urbino's army
   approaching from afar: their watch-fires were to be perceived;
   and every moment he expected that the duke would attack and
   deliver the city. But he moved not. It is thought he intended
   now to avenge the rapine which the Medici under Leo. X. had
   carried on against him. … After having rested for some time
   in sight of the city, in which the imperialists had opened
   their intrenchments round the castle of St. Angelo for a
   regular siege, he withdrew back again to the north, and left
   the pope to his fate."

      _H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapter 10, section 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Benvenuto Cellini,
      Life,
      translated by J. A. Symonds,
      book 1, sections 34-38 (volume 1)._

      _Benvenuto Cellini,
      Life,
      translated by T. Roscoe,
      chapter 7._

      _J. S. Brewer,
      The Reign of Henry VIII.,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Siege and captivity of the Pope.
   New league against the Emperor.
   French invasion and disastrous siege of Naples.
   Genoese independence recovered.
   Treaties of Barcelona and Cambrai.
   Francis renounces all pretensions beyond the Alps.
   Charles V. supreme.

   Shut up in Castle St. Angelo, the Pope, Clement VII.,
   "deprived of every resource, and reduced to such extremity of
   famine as to feed on asses' flesh, was obliged to capitulate
   on such conditions as the conquerors were pleased to
   prescribe. He agreed to pay 400,000 ducats to the army; to
   surrender to the emperor all the places of strength belonging
   to the Church; and, besides giving hostages, to remain a
   prisoner himself until the chief articles were performed. …
   The account of this extraordinary and unexpected event was no
   less surprising than agreeable to the emperor.
{1841}
   But in order to conceal his joy from his subjects, who were
   filled with horror at the success and crimes of their
   countrymen, and to lessen the indignation of the rest of
   Europe, he declared that Rome had been assaulted without any
   order from him. He wrote to all the princes with whom he was
   in alliance, disclaiming his having had any knowledge of
   Bourbon's intention. He put himself and court into mourning;
   commanded the rejoicings which had been ordered for the birth
   of his son Philip to be stopped; and, employing an artifice no
   less hypocritical than gross, he appointed prayers and
   processions throughout all Spain for the recovery of the
   pope's liberty, which, by an order to his generals, he could
   have immediately granted him. … Francis and Henry [of France
   and England], alarmed at the progress of the imperial arms in
   Italy, had, even before the taking of Rome, entered into a
   closer alliance; and, in order to give some check to the
   emperor's ambition, had agreed to make a vigorous diversion in
   the Low Countries. The force of every motive which had
   influenced them at that time was now increased; and to these
   was added the desire of rescuing the pope out of the emperor's
   hands, a measure no less politic than it appeared to be pious.
   This, however, rendered it necessary to abandon their hostile
   intentions against the Low Countries, and to make Italy the
   seat of war. … Besides all … public considerations, Henry
   was influenced by one of a more private nature: having begun,
   about this time, to form his great scheme of divorcing
   Catharine of Aragon, towards the execution of which he knew
   that the sanction of papal authority would be necessary, he
   was desirous to acquire as much merit as possible with
   Clement, by appearing to be the chief instrument of his
   deliverance. … Henry … entered so eagerly into this new
   alliance, that, in order to give Francis the strongest proof
   of his friendship and respect, he formally renounced the
   ancient claim of the English monarchs to the crown of France,
   which had long been the pride and ruin of the nation; as a
   full compensation for which he accepted a pension of 50,000
   crowns, to be paid annually to himself and his successors. The
   pope, being unable to fulfil the conditions of his
   capitulation, still remained a prisoner. … The Florentines
   no sooner heard of what had happened at Rome, than they ran to
   arms … and, declaring themselves a free state, reëstablished
   their ancient popular government.

      See FLORENCE: A. D.1502-1569.

   The Venetians, taking advantage of the calamity of their ally,
   the pope, seized Ravenna, and other places belonging to the
   church, under pretext of keeping them in deposite." On the
   other hand, Lannoy, Charles' viceroy at Naples, "marched to
   Rome, together with Moncada and the Marquis del Guasto, at the
   head of all the troops which they could assemble in the
   kingdom of Naples. The arrival of this reinforcement brought
   new calamities on the unhappy citizens of Rome; for the
   soldiers, envying the wealth of their companions, imitated
   their license, and with the utmost rapacity gathered the
   gleanings which had escaped the avarice of the Spaniards and
   Germans. There was not now any army in Italy capable of making
   head against the imperialists." But the troops who had enjoyed
   months of license and riotous pillage in Rome could not be
   brought back to discipline, and refused to quit the perishing
   city. They had chosen for their general the Prince of Orange,
   who "was obliged to pay more attention to their humours than
   they did to his commands. … This gave the king of France and
   the Venetians leisure to form new schemes, and to enter into
   new arrangements for delivering the pope, and preserving the
   liberties of Italy. The newly-restored republic of Florence
   very imprudently joined with them, and Lautrec … was …
   appointed generalissimo of the league. … The best troops in
   France marched under his command; and the king of England,
   though he had not yet declared war against the emperor,
   advanced a considerable sum towards carrying on the
   expedition. Lautrec's first operations [1527] were prudent,
   vigorous and successful. By the assistance of Andrew Doria,
   the ablest sea-officer of that age, he rendered himself master
   of Genoa, and reëstablished in that republic the faction of
   the Fregosi, together with the dominion of France. He obliged
   Alexandria to surrender after a short siege, and reduced all
   the country on that side of the Tessino. He took Pavia, which
   had so long resisted the arms of his sovereign, by assault,
   and plundered it with … cruelty. … But Lautrec durst not
   complete a conquest which would have been so honourable to
   himself and of such advantage to the league. Francis … was
   afraid that, if Sforza were once reëstablished in Milan, they
   [his confederates] would second but coldly the attack which he
   intended to make on the kingdom of Naples. … Happily the
   importunities of the pope and the solicitations of the
   Florentines, the one for relief, and the other for protection,
   were so urgent as to furnish him with a decent pretext for
   marching forward. … While Lautrec advanced slowly towards
   Rome, the emperor" came to terms with the pope, and Clement
   obtained his liberty at the cost of 350,000 crowns, a tenth of
   the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and an agreement to take
   no part in the war against Charles. The latter next made
   overtures to the French king, offering some relaxation of the
   treaty of Madrid; but they were received in a manner that
   irritated even his cold temper. He, in turn, provoked his
   antagonist, until a ridiculous exchange of defiances to
   personal combat passed between them. Meantime "Lautrec
   continued his operations, which promised to be more decisive.
   His army, which was now increased to 35,000 men, advanced by
   great marches towards Naples." The remains of the imperial
   army retreated, as he advanced, from Rome, where it had held
   riot for ten months, and took shelter behind the
   fortifications of the Neapolitan capital. Lautrec undertook
   (April, 1528) the siege of Naples, with the co-operation of
   the Genoese admiral, Doria, who blockaded its port. But he was
   neglected by his own frivolous king, and received little aid
   from the Pope, the king of England, or other confederates of
   the league. Moreover, Doria and the Genoese suffered treatment
   so insolent, oppressive and threatening, from the French court
   that the former opened negotiations with the emperor for a
   transfer of his services. "Charles, fully sensible of the
   importance of such an acquisition, granted him whatever terms
   he required.
{1842}
   Doria sent back his commission, together with the collar of
   St. Michael, to Francis, and, hoisting the imperial colours,
   sailed with all his galleys towards Naples, not to block up
   the harbour of that unhappy city, as he had formerly engaged,
   but to bring them protection and deliverance. His arrival
   opened the communication with the sea, and restored plenty in
   Naples, which was now reduced to the last extremity; and the
   French … were soon reduced to great straits for want of
   provisions." With the heat of summer came pestilence; Lautrec
   died, and the wasted French army, attempting to retreat, was
   forced to lay down its arms and march under guard to the
   frontiers of France. "The loss of Genoa followed immediately
   upon the ruin of the army in Naples." Doria took possession of
   the town; the French garrison in the citadel capitulated
   (September 12, 1528), and the citadel was destroyed. "It was
   now in Doria's power to have rendered himself the sovereign of
   his country, which he had so happily delivered from
   oppression." But he magnanimously refused any preeminence
   among his fellow citizens. "Twelve persons were elected to
   new-model the constitution of the republic. The influence of
   Doria's virtue and example communicated itself to his
   countrymen; the factions which had long torn and ruined the
   state seemed to be forgotten; prudent precautions were taken
   to prevent their reviving; and the same form of government
   which hath subsisted with little variation since that time in
   Genoa, was established with universal applause." In Lombardy,
   the French army, under St. Pol, was surprised, defeated and
   ruined at Landriano (June, 1529), as completely as the army in
   Naples had been a few months before. All parties were now
   desirous of peace, but feared to seem too eager in making
   overtures. Two women took the negotiations in hand and carried
   them to a conclusion. "These were Margaret of Austria,
   dutchess dowager of Savoy, the emperor's aunt, and Louise,
   Francis's mother. They agreed on an interview at Cambray, and,
   being lodged in two adjoining houses, between which a
   communication was opened, met together without ceremony or
   observation, and held daily conferences, to which no person
   whatever was admitted." The result was a treaty signed August
   5, 1529, known as the Peace of Cambray, or "the Ladies'
   Peace," or "Peace of the Dames." By its terms, Francis was to
   pay 2,000,000 crowns for the ransom of his sons; restore such
   towns as he still held in the Milanese; resign and renounce
   his pretensions to Naples, Milan, Genoa, and every other place
   beyond the Alps, as well as to Flanders and Artois; and
   consummate his marriage with the emperor's sister, Eleanora.
   On the other hand, the emperor only agreed not to press his
   claims on Burgundy, for the present, but reserved them, in
   full force. Another treaty, that of Barcelona, had already, in
   1529, been concluded between the emperor and the pope. The
   former gave up the papal states which he occupied, and agreed
   to reëstablish the dominion of the Medici in Florence; besides
   giving his natural daughter in marriage to Alexander, the head
   of that family. In return he received the investiture of
   Naples, absolution for all concerned in the plundering of
   Rome, and the grant to himself and his brother of a fourth of
   the ecclesiastical revenues throughout their dominions.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      books 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 28._

      _C. Coignat,
      Francis I. and his Times,
      chapter 9._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Studies from Genoese History,
      chapter 1._

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1528-1570.
   Naples under the Spanish Viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   Successful revolt against the Inquisition.
   Unsuccessful French invasion under Guise.

   "After the memorable and unfortunate expedition of Lautrec, in
   1528, Philibert of Chalons, Prince of Orange, who commanded
   the Imperial army, exercised the severest vengeance [in
   Naples] on the persons and estates of all those nobles who had
   joined the French, or who appeared to demonstrate any
   attachment towards that nation. … These multiplied … acts
   of oppression received no effectual redress during the short
   administration [1529-1532] of Cardinal Colonna, who succeeded
   to the Prince of Orange. … In the place of Cardinal Colonna
   was substituted Don Pedro de Toledo, who governed Naples with
   almost unlimited powers, during the space of near 21 years.
   His viceroyalty, which forms a memorable Epocha in the annals
   of the country, demands and fixes attention. We are impressed
   with horror at finding, by his own confession, … that during
   the progress of his administration, he put to death near
   18,000 persons, by the hand of the executioner. Yet a fact
   still more extraordinary is that Giannoné, himself a
   Neapolitan, and one of the ablest as well as most impartial
   historians whom the 18th century has produced, not only
   acquits, but even commends Toledo's severity, as equally
   wholesome and necessary," on account of the terrible
   lawlessness and disorder which he found in the country. "The
   inflexible and stern character of the viceroy speedily
   redressed these grievances, and finally restored order in the
   capital. … All the provinces experienced equal attention,
   and became the objects of his personal inspection. The
   unprotected coasts of Calabria and of Apulia, subject to the
   continual devastation of the Turks, who landed from their
   gallies, were fortified with towers and beacons to announce
   the enemy's approach. … Repeated attempts were made by
   Solyman II., Emperor of the Turks, either alone or in
   conjunction with the fleets of France, to effect the conquest
   of Naples, during this period: but the exertions of Toledo
   were happily attended with success in repulsing the Turkish
   invaders. … In no part of the middle ages … were the
   coasts of Naples and Sicily so frequently plundered, ravaged,
   and desolated, as at this period. Thousands of persons of both
   sexes, and of all conditions, were carried off by Barbarossa,
   Dragut, Sinan, and the other Bashaws, or admirals of the
   Porte. Not content with landing on the shores and ravaging the
   provinces, their squadrons perpetually appeared in sight of
   Naples; laid waste the islands of Ischia and Procida, situate
   in its immediate vicinity; attacked the towns of Pouzzoli and
   Baiæ; and committed every outrage of wanton barbarity. … The
   invasion of 1552, when Dragut blocked up the harbour of
   Naples, with 150 large gallies, during near four weeks, spread
   still greater consternation; and if the fleet of France had
   arrived, as had been concerted, it is more than probable that
   the city must have fallen into their hands. But the delays of
   Henry II., Solyman's ally, proved its preservation. The
   Turkish admiral, corrupted by a present of 200,000 ducats,
   which the Viceroy found means of conveying to him, retired and
   made sail for Constantinople. …
{1843}
   The administration of Toledo … was … completely subverted
   from the moment that he attempted [1546] to introduce the
   Inquisition. … The Neapolitans, patient under every other
   species of oppression, instantly revolted. … They even
   forgot, in the general terror, the distinction of ranks; and
   the Barons united with their fellow-citizens to oppose that
   formidable tribunal. The Viceroy, returning to the capital,
   reinforced by 3,000 veteran Spaniards, determined
   nevertheless, to support the measure. Hostilities took place,
   and the city, during near three months, was abandoned to
   anarchy, while the inhabitants, having invested the castle,
   besieged their governor. … The Emperor, convinced by
   experience of the impracticability of success in his attempt,
   at length desisted." Toledo died in 1553, and "was succeeded
   by the Cardinal Pacheco, as Viceroy; and the abdication of
   Charles V., in the following year, devolved on his son Philip
   II. the sovereignty of Naples. Alarmed at the preparations
   made by Henry II., King of France, in conjunction with Paul
   IV., who had newly ascended the papal throne, Philip
   dispatched Ferdinand, Duke of Alva, to the aid of his
   Neapolitan subjects; and to the vigorous measures embraced by
   him on his arrival was due the safety of the kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   … The administration of the Duke of Alcala, to whom Philip
   delegated the supreme power soon after the recall of Alva
   [1558], lasted near 12 years, and was marked by almost every
   species of calamity."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

   "The march of the Mareschal of Lautrec was the last important
   attempt of the French to reconquer Naples. … Spain remained
   in possession of this beautiful country for two centuries. …
   Their [the Spaniards'] ascendancy was owing as well to an iron
   discipline as to that inveterate character of their race, the
   firmness of purpose which had gradually developed itself in
   the long struggle for the country which they wrenched inch by
   inch from their tenacious enemies. The Neapolitans found that
   they had in the Spaniards different rulers from the French."

      _A. de Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni:
      Naples under Spanish Dominion,
      book 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1529.
   Siege of Florence by the Imperial forces.
   Reinstatement of the Medici.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1530-1600.
   Under the Spanish domination, and the Papacy of the
   Counter-Reformation.
   The Inquisition.
   The Jesuits.
   The Vice-regal rule.
   Deplorable state of the country.

   "It will be useful, at this point, to recapitulate the net
   results of Charles's administration of Italian affairs in
   1530. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the island of
   Sardinia and the Duchy of Milan, became Spanish provinces, and
   were ruled henceforth by viceroys. The House of Este was
   confirmed in the Duchy of Ferrara, including Modena and
   Reggio. The Duchies of Savoy and Mantua and the Marquisate of
   Montferrat, which had espoused the Spanish cause, were
   undisturbed. Genoa and Siena, both of them avowed allies of
   Spain, the former under Spanish protection, the latter subject
   to Spanish coercion, remained with the name and empty
   privileges of republics. Venice had made her peace with Spain,
   and though she was still strong enough to pursue an
   independent policy, she showed as yet no inclination, and had,
   indeed, no power, to stir up enemies against the Spanish
   autocrat. The Duchy of Urbino, recognised by Rome and
   subservient to Spanish influence, was permitted to exist. The
   Papacy once more assumed a haughty tone, relying on the firm
   alliance struck with Spain. This league, as years went by, was
   destined to grow still closer, still more fruitful of results.
   Florence alone had been excepted from the articles of peace.
   It was still enduring the horrors of the memorable siege when
   Clement left Bologna at the end of May. … Finally, on August
   12, the town capitulated. Alessandro de' Medici, who had
   received the title of Duke of Florence from Charles at
   Bologna, took up his residence there in July 1531, and held
   the State by help of Spanish mercenaries under the command of
   Alessandro Vitelli. … Though the people endured far less
   misery from foreign armies in the period between 1530 and 1600
   than they had done in the period from 1494 to 1527, yet the
   state of the country grew ever more and more deplorable. This
   was due in the first instance to the insane methods of
   taxation adopted by the Spanish viceroys, who held monopolies
   of corn and other necessary commodities in their hands, and
   who invented imposts for the meanest articles of consumption.
   Their example was followed by the Pope and petty princes. …
   The settlement made by Charles V. in 1530, and the various
   changes which took place in the duchies between that date and
   the end of the century, had then the effect of rendering the
   Papacy and Spain omnipotent in Italy. … What they only
   partially effected in Europe at large, by means of S.
   Bartholomew massacres, exterminations of Jews in Toledo and of
   Mussulmans in Granada, holocausts of victims in the Low
   Countries, wars against French Huguenots and German Lutherans,
   naval expeditions and plots against the state of England,
   assassinations of heretic princes, and occasional burning of
   free thinkers, they achieved with plenary success in Italy.
   … It is the tragic history of the eldest and most beautiful,
   the noblest and most venerable, the freest and most gifted of
   Europe's daughters, delivered over to the devilry that issued
   from the most incompetent and arrogantly stupid of the
   European sisterhood, and to the cruelty, inspired by panic, of
   an impious theocracy. When we use these terms to designate the
   Papacy of the Counter-Reformation, it is not that we forget
   how many of those Popes were men of blameless private life and
   serious views for Catholic Christendom. When we use these
   terms to designate the Spanish race in the sixteenth century,
   it is not that we are ignorant of Spanish chivalry and
   colonising enterprise, of Spanish romance, or of the fact that
   Spain produced great painters, great dramatists, and one great
   novelist in the brief period of her glory. We use them
   deliberately, however, in both cases; because the Papacy at
   this period committed itself to a policy of immoral,
   retrograde, and cowardly repression of the most generous of
   human impulses under the pressure of selfish terror; because
   the Spaniards abandoned themselves to a dark fiend of
   religious fanaticism; because they were merciless in their
   conquests and unintelligent in their administration of
   subjugated provinces; because they glutted their lusts of
   avarice and hatred on industrious folk of other creeds within
   their borders; because they cultivated barren pride and
   self-conceit in social life; because at the great epoch of
   Europe's reawakening they chose the wrong side and adhered to
   it with fatal obstinacy. …
{1844}
   After the year 1530 seven Spanish devils entered Italy. These
   were the devil of the Inquisition, with stake and
   torture-room, and war declared against the will and soul and
   heart and intellect of man; the devil of Jesuitry, with its
   sham learning, shameless lying, and casuistical economy of
   sins; the devil of vice-royal rule, with its life-draining
   monopolies and gross incapacity for government; the devil of
   an insolent soldiery, quartered on the people, clamorous for
   pay, outrageous in their lusts and violences; the devil of
   fantastical taxation, levying tolls upon the bare necessities
   of life, and drying up the founts of national well-being at
   their sources; the devil of petty-princedom, wallowing in
   sloth and cruelty upon a pinchbeck throne; the devil of
   effeminate hidalgoism, ruinous in expenditure, mean and
   grasping, corrupt in private life, in public ostentatious,
   vain of titles, cringing to its masters, arrogant to its
   inferiors. In their train these brought with them seven other
   devils, their pernicious offspring: idleness, disease,
   brigandage, destitution, ignorance, superstition,
   hypocritically sanctioned vice. These fourteen devils were
   welcomed, entertained, and voluptuously lodged in all the
   fairest provinces of Italy. The Popes opened wide for them the
   gates of outraged and depopulated Rome. … After a tranquil
   sojourn of some years in Italy, these devils had every where
   spread desolation and corruption. Broad regions, like the
   Patrimony of S. Peter and Calabria, were given over to
   marauding bandits; wide tracts of fertile country, like the
   Sienese Maremma, were abandoned to malaria; wolves prowled
   through empty villages round Milan; in every city the
   pestilence swept off its hundreds daily; manufactures,
   commerce, agriculture, the industries of town and rural
   district, ceased; the Courts swarmed with petty nobles, who
   vaunted paltry titles, and resigned their wives to cicisbei
   and their sons to sloth; art and learning languished; there
   was not a man who ventured to speak out his thought or write
   the truth; and over the Dead Sea of social putrefaction
   floated the sickening oil of Jesuitical hypocrisy."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      part 1, chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1536-1544.
   French invasion of Piedmont.
   French and Turkish siege of Nice.
   Turkish ravages on the coast.
   The Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

ITALY: A. D. 1545-1556.
   Creation of the duchy of Parma and Placentia,
   under the rule of the House of Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1580.
   End of the French occupation of Savoy and Piedmont.
   The notable reign of Emanuel Philibert.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1600.
   Peace without Prosperity.
   Foreign and domestic Despotism.
   Exhaustion and helplessness of the country.

   "From the epoch of the treaty of Château Cambresis [1559] to
   the close of the 16th century, Italy remained, in one sense,
   in profound and uninterrupted peace. During this long period
   of 41 years, her provinces were neither troubled by a single
   invasion of foreign armies, nor by any hostilities of
   importance between her own feeble and nerveless powers. But
   this half century presented, nevertheless, anything rather
   than the aspect of public happiness and prosperity. Her
   wretched people enjoyed none of the real blessings of peace.
   Subject either to the oppressive yoke of their native despots,
   or to the more general influence of the arch-tyrant of Spain,
   they were abandoned to all the exactions of arbitrary
   government, and compelled to lavish their blood in foreign
   wars and in quarrels not their own. While France, torn by
   religious and civil dissensions, sank for a time from her
   political station among the powers of the continent, and was
   no longer capable of affording protection or exciting
   jealousy, Philip II. was left free to indulge in the peninsula
   all the obdurate tyranny of his nature. … The popes were
   interested in supporting his career of bigotry and religious
   persecution; the other powers of Italy crouched before him in
   abject submission. To feed the religious wars, in which he
   embarked as a principal or an accessory, in the endeavour to
   crush the protestant cause in France, in the Low Countries,
   and in Germany, he drained Italy of her resources in money and
   in men. … While the Italian soldiery fought with the courage
   of freemen, they continued the slaves of a despot, and while
   the Italian youth were consumed in transalpine warfare, their
   suffering country groaned under an iron yoke, and was
   abandoned a prey to the unresisted assaults of the infidels.
   Her coasts, left without troops, or defences in fortifications
   and shipping, were insulted and ravaged by the constant
   descents of the corsairs of Turkey and Barbary. Her maritime
   villages were burnt, her maritime population dragged off into
   slavery; and her tyrants, while they denied the people the
   power of defending themselves, were unable or careless also to
   afford them protection and safety."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

ITALY: A. D. 1569.
   Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ITALY: A. D. 1605-1607.
   Venice under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   Successful contest of the Republic with the Papacy.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
   Disputed succession to the Duchy of Mantua.
   War of France with Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.

   "About Christmas in the year 1627, Vincenzo II., Duke of
   Mantua, of the house of Gonzaga, died without issue. His next
   of kin, beyond all controversy, was Charles Gonzaga, Duke of
   Nevers, whose family had settled in France some fifty years
   before, and acquired by marriage the dukedoms of Nevers and
   Rethel. Although there was a jealousy on the part both of
   Austria and Spain that French influences should be introduced
   into Upper Italy, there seems to have been no intention, in
   the first instance, of depriving Charles of his Italian
   inheritance. … But … when the old Duke Vincenzo's days
   were evidently numbered, Charles's son, the young Duke of
   Rethel, by collusion with the citizens, arrived at Mantua to
   seize the throne which in a little while death would make
   vacant."
{1845}
   At the same time, he took from a convent in the city a young
   girl who represented whatever claims might exist in the direct
   native line, and married her, the pope granting a
   dispensation. "Both the King of Spain and the Emperor … were
   incensed by conduct which both must needs have regarded as
   indicative of hostility, and the latter as an invasion of his
   feudal rights. Spain flew to arms at once. The emperor
   summoned the young duke before his tribunal, to answer the
   charges of having seized the succession without his
   investiture, and married his ward without his consent. …
   Charles, supported by the promises of Richelieu, refused to
   acknowledge the emperor's rights of superiority, or to submit
   to his jurisdiction."

      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapter 8._

   "The emperor … sequestered the disputed territory, and a
   Spanish army invaded Montferrat [embraced in the dominions of
   the Duke of Mantua] and besieged Casale, the capital. Such was
   the paramount importance attached by Richelieu to his
   principle of opposition to the house of Austria, that he
   induced Louis to cross the Alps in person with 36,000 men, in
   order to establish the Duke of Nevers in his new possessions.
   The king and the cardinal forced the pass of Susa in March,
   1629, in spite of the Duke of Savoy, who was another
   competitor for Montferrat, and so decisive was the superiority
   of the French arms that the duke immediately afterward signed
   a treaty of peace and alliance with Louis, by which he
   undertook to procure the abandonment of the siege of Casale
   and the retreat of the Spaniards into their own territory.
   This engagement was fulfilled, and the Duke of Nevers took
   possession of his dominions without farther contest. But the
   triumph was too rapid and easy to be durable."

      _N. W. Jervis,
      Students' History of France,
      chapter 19._

   "The Spaniards remained, however, in Milaness, ready to burst
   again upon the Duke of Mantua. The king was in a hurry to
   return to France, in order to finish the subjugation of the
   Reformers in the south, commanded by the Duke of Rohan. The
   cardinal placed little or no reliance upon the Duke of Savoy.
   … A league … was formed between France, the republic of
   Venice, the Duke of Mantua, and the Duke of Savoy, for the
   defence of Italy in case of fresh aggression on the part of
   the Spaniards; and the king, who had just concluded peace with
   England, took the road back to France. Scarcely had the
   cardinal joined him before Privas when an Imperialist army
   advanced into the Grisons and, supported by the celebrated
   Spanish general Spinola, laid siege to Mantua. Richelieu did
   not hesitate: he entered Piedmont in the month of March, 1630,
   to march before long on Pignerol, an important place
   commanding the passage of the Alps; it, as well as the
   citadel, was carried in a few days. … The Duke of Savoy was
   furious, and had the soldiers who surrendered Pignerol cut in
   pieces. The king [Louis XIII.] had put himself in motion to
   join his army. … The inhabitants of Chambéry opened their
   gates to him; Annecy and Montmélian succumbed after a few
   days' siege; Maurienne in its entirety made its submission,
   and the king fixed his quarters there, whilst the cardinal
   pushed forward to Casale [the siege of which had been resumed
   by Spinola] with the main body of the army. Rejoicings were
   still going on for a success gained before Veillane over the
   troops of the Duke of Savoy, when news arrived of the capture
   of Mantua by the Imperialists. This was the finishing blow to
   the ambitious and restless spirit of the Duke of Savoy. He saw
   Mantua in the hands of the Spaniards, 'who never give back
   aught of what falls into their power' … ; it was all hope
   lost of an exchange which might have given him back Savoy; he
   took to his bed and died on the 26th of July, 1630, telling
   his son that peace must be made on any terms whatever." A
   truce was arranged, followed by negotiations at Ratisbon, and
   Casale was evacuated by both parties—the Spaniards having
   had possession of the city, while the citadel was held by the
   French. "It was only in the month of September, 1631, that the
   states of Savoy and Mantua were finally evacuated by the
   hostile troops. Pignerol had been given up to the new Duke of
   Savoy, but a secret agreement had been entered into between
   that prince and France: French soldiers remained concealed in
   Pignerol; and they retook possession of the place in the name
   of the king, who had purchased the town and its territory, to
   secure himself a passage into Italy. … The affairs of the
   emperor in Germany were in too bad a state for him to rekindle
   war, and France kept Pignerol."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 41._

   "The peace left all parties very nearly in the condition in
   which they were when the war began; the chief loser was the
   emperor, who was now compelled to acknowledge De Nevers as
   Duke of Mantua and Montserrat; and the chief gainer was the
   Duke of Savoy, whose territories were enlarged by the addition
   of Alba, Trino, and some portions of the territory of
   Montserrat which lay nearest to his Piedmontese dominions.
   France; too, made some permanent acquisitions to compensate
   her for the cost of the war. She eluded the stipulation which
   bound her to evacuate Casal, and Victor Amedée subsequently
   suffered her to retain both that fortress and Pignerol, such
   permission, as was generally believed, … having furnished
   the secret reason which influenced Richelieu to consent to the
   duke's obtaining the portion of Montserrat already mentioned,
   the cardinal thus making the Duke of Mantua furnish the
   equivalent for the acquisitions made by Louis."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ITALY: A. D. 1631.
   Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1635.
   Italian alliances of Richelieu against the Spaniards in Milan.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Invasion of Milanese by French and Italian armies.
   Civil war and foreign war in Savoy and Piedmont.
   The extraordinary siege of Turin.
   Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Restoration of territory to Savoy.

   "Richelieu … having obtained the alliance of the Dukes of
   Savoy, Parma, and Mantua, and having secured the neutrality of
   the Republics of Venice and Genoa, now bent all his efforts to
   expel the Spaniards from Milan, which was at that time but
   weakly defended. … In 1635, a French army of 15,000 men was
   accordingly assembled in Dauphiny, and placed under the
   command of Mareschal Crequi. Having crossed the Alps, it
   formed a junction with 8,000 troops under the Duke of Parma,
   and 12,000 under the Duke of Savoy, to whom the supreme
   command of this formidable army of 35,000 men was entrusted.
{1846}
   Such a force, if properly employed, ought to have proved
   sufficient to overwhelm the Dutchy of Milan, in its present
   unprotected condition. … But the confederates were long
   detained by idle disputes among themselves, their
   licentiousness and love of plunder." When they did advance
   into Milanese, their campaign was ineffective, and they
   finally "separated with mutual disgust," but "kept the field,
   ravaging the open and fertile plains of Milan. They likewise
   took possession of several towns, particularly Bremi, on the
   Po. … On hearing of the distress of Milan, the King of Spain
   took immediate steps for the relief of that bulwark of his
   Italian power. In 1636 he appointed to its government Diego
   Guzman, Marques of Leganez, who was a near relative of
   Olivarez. … He had not long entered on the government
   intrusted to him when he succeeded in expelling the enemy from
   every spot in Milan, with exception of Bremi, which they still
   retained. Milan having been thus delivered, Leganez
   transferred the theatre of war to the States of the Duke of
   Parma, and completely desolated those fertile regions,"
   compelling the Duke to renounce his French alliance (1637).
   "The Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, did not long survive these
   events; and it was strongly suspected, both in Spain and
   Italy, though probably on no just grounds, that he had been
   poisoned. … The demise of the Duke of Mantua occurred nearly
   about the same period; and on the decease of these two
   princes, the Court of Spain used every exertion to detach
   their successors from the French confederacy. Its efforts
   succeeded, at least to a certain extent, with the
   Dutchess-dowager of Mantua. … But the Dutchess of Savoy, …
   being the sister of Louis XIII., could not easily be drawn off
   from the French interests. Olivarez [the Spanish minister],
   despairing to gain this princess, excited by his intrigues the
   brothers of the late Duke [Cardinal Maurice and Prince Thomas]
   to dispute with her the title to the regency." Leganez, now
   (1638) laid siege to Bremi, and Marshal Crequi, in attempting
   to relieve the place, was killed by a cannon shot. "By the
   loss of Bremi, the French were deprived of the last receptacle
   for their supplies or forces in the Dutchy of Milan; and in
   consequence of the death of Crequi, they had now no longer any
   chief of their own nation in Italy. The few French nobility
   who were still in the army returned to their own country, and
   the soldiery dispersed into Montferrat and Piedmont. Leganez,
   availing himself of this favourable posture of affairs,
   marched straightway into Piedmont, at the head of an army of
   20,000 men. … He first laid siege to Vercelli, which, from
   its vicinity to Milan, had always afforded easy access for the
   invasion of that dutchy, by the French and Savoyards." A new
   French army, of 13,000 men, under Cardinal La Valette, was
   sent to the relief of the place, but did not save it from
   surrender. "After the capture of Vercelli, the light troops of
   Leganez ravaged the principality of Piedmont as far as the
   gates of Turin."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, from 1621 to 1700,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   Fabert and Turenne were now sent from France to the assistance
   of La Valette, "and soon changed the aspect of affairs.
   Turenne aided powerfully in driving back Leganez and Prince
   Thomas from Turin, in seizing Chivasso and in organizing a
   decisive success." In November, 1639, the French, through want
   of provisions, were forced to retreat to Carignano, repelling
   an attack made upon them in the course of the retreat. The
   command was now handed over to Turenne, "with instructions to
   revictual the citadel of Turin, which was defended by French
   troops against Prince Thomas, who had gained most of the town.
   Turenne succeeded … in conveying food and munitions into the
   citadel. In the following spring d'Harcourt [resuming command]
   undertook to relieve Casale, which belonged to the Duke of
   Mantua. … The place was besieged by Leganez." The attempt
   succeeded, the besieging army was beaten, and the siege
   raised. "After the relief of Casale d'Harcourt resolved, on
   the advice of Turenne, to besiege Turin. The investment was
   made on the 10th May, 1640. This siege offered a curious
   spectacle; the citadel which the French held was besieged by
   Prince Thomas, who held the town. He himself was besieged by
   the French army, which in its turn was besieged in its lines
   of circumvallation by the Spanish army of Leganez. The place
   capitulated on the 17th September. … Prince Thomas
   surrendered; Leganez recrossed the Po; Marie Christine [the
   Dowager-Duchess] re-entered Turin; and d'Harcourt, being
   recalled to France by the cardinal, left the command of the
   army to Turenne."

      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapter 2._

   "The fall of Turin did not put an end to the civil war, but
   its main exploits were limited to the taking of Cuneo by
   Harcourt (September 15th, 1641), … and of Revel, which was
   reduced by the Piedmontese troops who fought on the French
   side. … In the meantime the Regent, no less than her
   opponents, began to grow weary of the burdensome protection of
   their respective allies. … Under such circumstances, a
   reconciliation between the hostile parties became practicable,
   and was indeed effected on the 24th of July, 1642. The Princes
   were admitted to a share of the Regent's power, and from that
   time they joined the French standard, and took from the
   Spaniards most of the places they had themselves placed in
   their hands. … In the meanwhile the great agitator of
   Europe, Richelieu, had died (1642), and had been followed by
   the King, Louis XIII., five months later. … The struggle
   between the two great rival powers, France and Spain, scarcely
   interrupted by the celebrated peace of Westphalia, which put
   an end to the Thirty Years' War in the North, in 1648,
   continued throughout the greatest part of this period; but the
   rapid decline of Spain, the factions of Alessio in Sicily and
   of Massaniello in Naples, as much paralysed the efforts of the
   Court of Madrid as the disorders of the Fronde weakened that
   of Paris. The warlike operations in North Italy were languid
   and dull. The taking of Valenza by the French (September 3rd,
   1656) is the greatest event on record, and even that [was]
   void of results. By the treaty of the Pyrenees (November 17th,
   1059) Savoy was restored to her possessions, and Vercelli was
   evacuated by the Spaniards. The citadel of Turin had been
   given up by the French two years before, owing to the
   influence of Mazarin, who married on that occasion his niece
   Olimpia Mancini to Eugene Maurice, son of Thomas, Prince of
   Carignano, and first cousin to Charles Emanuel II. From that
   union, it is well known, was born in Paris, in 1663, Prince
   Eugene of Savoy.
{1847}
   The French nation were highly displeased at the loss of the
   Turin citadel, and never forgave the Cardinal this mere act of
   just and tardy restitution. Pinerola and Perosa, however,
   still remained in their hands, and placed the Court of Turin
   entirely at their discretion. During all this lapse of years,
   and until the latter end of the century, the history of
   Piedmont presents but a melancholy blank."

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
   French hostility to the Pope.
   Siege of Orbitello.
   Masaniello's revolt at Naples.
   French intrigue and failures.

   "The war [of France and Spain] in Italy had for some years
   languished, but hostility to the Pope [on the election of
   Innocent X., which Cardinal Mazarin, then supreme in France,
   had opposed] stirred it again into life. New vessels were
   fitted out for the navy, and large preparations were made for
   the invasion of Italy. … On April 26, 1646, the expedition
   set sail, and on the 9th of May it cast anchor off the
   important city of Orbitello. The fleet consisted of 156 sail,
   and was expected to land 10,000 men, and Mazarin wrote that
   all Italy was in terror. The ships were commanded by the Duke
   of Brézé, and no more skilful or gallant leader could have
   been found. … The command of the land forces was, however,
   entrusted to a leader whose deficiencies more than
   counterbalanced Brézé's skill. Mazarin desired an Italian
   prince to lead his expedition, and Prince Thomas of Savoy had
   been chosen for the command. … Fearing that disease would
   come with the hot weather, Mazarin urged Prince Thomas to
   press forward with the siege. But the most simple advances
   seemed beyond his skill. … A severe misfortune to the navy
   made the situation worse. In a sharp and successful engagement
   with the Spanish fleet, a cannon ball struck and killed the
   Duke of Brézé. His death was more disastrous than would have
   been the loss of 20 sail. The French fleet retired to Provence
   and left the sea open to the Spanish. Sickness was fast
   reducing the army on land, and on July 18th Prince Thomas
   raised the siege, which was no further advanced than when it
   was begun, and led back the remains of his command to
   Piedmont. … So mortifying an end to this expensive venture
   only strengthened Mazarin's resolution to make his power felt
   in Italy. The battered ships and fever-wasted soldiers were
   scarcely back in Provence, when the minister began to prepare
   a second expedition for the same end. … By September a fleet
   of 200 sail, with an army of 8,000 men commanded by the
   Marshals of La Meilleraie and Du Plessis, was under way. The
   expedition was conducted with skill and success. Orbitello was
   not again attacked, but Porto Longone, on the island of Elba,
   and Piombino, on the mainland, both places of much strategic
   importance, were captured after brief sieges. With this result
   came at once the change in the feelings of Innocent X. for
   which Mazarin had hoped," and certain objects of the latter's
   desire—including a cardinal's hat for his brother
   Michael—were brought within his reach. His attention was now
   turned to the more southerly portion of the peninsula. "During
   the expedition to Orbitello in 1646, Mazarin had closely
   watched Naples, whose coming revolution he foresaw. The
   ill-suppressed discontents of the city now showed themselves
   in disturbances, sudden and erratic as the eruptions of
   Vesuvius, and they offered to France an opportunity for
   seizing the richest of the remaining possessions of Spain.
   After the vicissitudes of centuries, Naples and Sicily were
   now subject to the Spanish crown. They were governed by a
   viceroy, and were subjected to the drain of men and money
   which was the result of Spain's necessities and the
   characteristic of her rule. Burdened with taxation, they
   complained that their viceroy, the Duke of Arcos, was sending
   to Spain money raised solely for their own defence. The
   imposition of a duty on fruits, in a country where fruit
   formed a cheap article of diet for the poor, and where almost
   all were poor, kindled the long smouldering discontent. Under
   the leadership of a fisherman [Tommaso Aniello], nicknamed
   Masaniello, the people of Naples in 1647 rose in revolt.
   Springing from utter obscurity, this young man of
   twenty-seven, poor and illiterate, became powerful almost in a
   day. While the Duke of Arcos hid himself away from the revolt,
   Masaniello was made Captain-General of Naples. So sudden a
   change turned his head. At first he had been bold, popular,
   and judicious. He sought only, he said, to deliver the people
   from their taxes, and when that was done, he would return
   again to selling soles and red mullets. But political delirium
   seized him when he reached an elevation which, for him, was as
   dizzy as the throne of the Roman emperors, and like some who
   reached that terrible eminence, his brain was crazed by the
   bewilderment and ecstasy of power. He made wild and incoherent
   speeches. He tore his garments, crying out against popular
   ingratitude, attacking groups of passers-by, riding his horse
   wildly through the multitude, and striking with his lance to
   the right and left. The populace wearied of its darling.
   Exalted to power on July 7th, he was murdered on the 16th,
   with the approval of those who had worshipped him a week
   before. But the revolution did not perish with him. Successive
   chiefs were chosen and deposed by a fickle people. When the
   insurrection was active, the representatives of Spain promised
   untaxed fruits and the privileges allowed by Charles V., and
   they revoked their promises when it appeared to subside. In
   the meantime, Mazarin watched the movement, uncertain as to
   the course he should pursue. … While the minister hesitated,
   the chance was seized by one who was never accused of too
   great caution." This was the Duke of Guise—the fifth Henry of
   that Dukedom—a wild, madcap young nobleman, who accepted an
   invitation from the Neapolitan insurgents to become their
   chief. Guise landed at Naples on the 15th of November, 1647,
   with half a dozen attendants, and a month later he was
   followed by a French fleet. But the latter did nothing, and
   Guise was helplessly without means. "The truth was that
   Mazarin, even if desirous of crippling the Spaniards, was very
   averse to assisting Guise. He believed that the duke either
   desired to form a republic, of which he should be chief, or a
   monarchy, of which he should be king, and neither plan was
   agreeable to the cardinal." At the end of a fortnight the
   fleet sailed away. Guise held his ground as the leader of the
   revolt until the following April, when certain of the
   Neapolitan patriots, corrupted by the enemy, betrayed the city
   into the hands of the Spaniards.
{1848}
   "Guise endeavored, with a handful of followers, to escape
   towards Capua, but they were captured by a detachment of
   Spaniards. … By the petition of powerful friends, and by the
   avowal of France, Guise was saved from the public execution
   which some of his enemies demanded, but he was presently taken
   to Spain, and there was kept a prisoner during four years."
   Meantime, Mazarin had prepared another expedition, which
   appeared before Naples in the summer of 1648, but only to
   discover that the opportunity for deriving any advantage from
   the popular discontent in that city was past. "Receiving no
   popular aid, the expedition, after some ineffective endeavors,
   was abandoned." Six years afterwards, in 1654, Mazarin sent a
   third expedition to Naples, and entrusted it to the command of
   the Duke of Guise, who had lately been released from his
   captivity in Spain. "Guise hoped that the Neapolitans would
   rise in revolt when it was known that their former leader was
   so near, but not a person in the city showed any desire to
   start a movement in behalf of the Duke of Guise. The Spanish
   met him with superior forces." After some slight encounters
   the expedition sailed back to France.

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1),
      and chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. De Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni:
      Naples under Spanish Dominion,
      book 3._

      _F. Midon,
      Rise and Fall of Masaniello._

      _Mrs. H. R. St. John,
      Masaniello of Naples._

      _H. G. Smith,
      Romance of History,
      chapter 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
   Savoy and Piedmont.
   The War of the Spanish Succession.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

   "Compelled to take part, with one of the contending parties
   [in the War of the Spanish Succession—see SPAIN: A. D.
   1698-1700, and 1701-1702], Victor [Duke of Savoy] would have
   been prompted by his interest to an alliance with Austria; but
   he was beset on all sides by the combined forces of France and
   Spain, and was all the more at their mercy as Louis XIV. had
   (April 5th, 1701) obtained from Ferdinand Gonzaga of Mantua
   permission to garrison his capital, in those days already one
   of the strongest places in Italy. The Duke of Savoy had
   already, in 1697, married his daughter, Adelaide, to one of
   Louis's grandsons, the Duke of Burgundy; he now gave his
   younger daughter, Mary Louise, to Burgundy's brother, the new
   King of Spain (September 11th, 1701), and took the field as
   French commander-in-chief. He was opposed by his own cousin,
   Prince Eugene, at the head of the Imperial armies. The war in
   Lombardy was carried on with some remissness, partly owing to
   the natural repugnance or irresolution of the Duke of Savoy,
   partly to the suspicion with which, on that very account, he
   was looked upon by Catinat and Vaudemont, the French and
   Spanish commanders under him. The King, in an evil hour,
   removed his able marshal, Catinat, and substituted for him
   Villeroi, a carpet knight and court warrior, who committed one
   fault after another, allowed himself to be beaten by Eugene at
   Chiari (September 1st), and to be surprised and taken prisoner
   at Cremona (1702, January 21st), to the infinite relief of his
   troops. Vendôme restored the fortunes of the French, and a
   very brilliant but undecisive action was fought at Luzzara
   (August 15th), after which Prince Eugene was driven from the
   neighbourhood of Mantua, and fell back towards the mountains
   of Tyrol. With the success of the French their arrogance
   increased, and with their arrogance the disgust and ill-will
   of Victor Amadeus." The Duke withdrew from the camp and began
   to listen to overtures from the Powers in the Grand Alliance.
   "Report of the secret intercourse of the Duke with Austrian
   agents reached Louis XIV., who sent immediate orders to
   Vendôme to secure and disarm the Piedmontese soldiers (3,800
   to 6,000 in number) who were fighting under French standards
   at Mantua. This was achieved by treachery, at San Benedetto,
   on the 29th of September, 1703. An attempt to seize the Duke
   himself, whilst hunting near Turin, miscarried. Savoy
   retaliated by the arrest of the French and Spanish
   ambassadors, and war was declared (October 5th). The moment
   was ill-chosen. Victor had barely 4,000 men under his orders.
   The whole of Savoy was instantly overrun; and in Piedmont
   Vercelli, Ivrea, Verrua, as well as Susa, Bard, and Pinerolo,
   and even Chivasso, fell into the enemy's hands during the
   campaigns of 1704 and 1705. In the ensuing year the tide of
   invasion reached Nice and Villafranca; nothing was left to
   Victor Amadeus but Cuneo and Turin, and the victorious French
   armies appeared at last under the very walls of the capital
   (March, 1706). The war had, however, been waged with different
   results beyond the Alps, where the allies had crushed the
   French at Blenheim (1704) and at Ramillies (1705). One of the
   heroes of those great achievements, Prince Eugene, now
   hastened to the rescue of his cousin. He met with a severe
   check at Cassano (August 16th, 1705), and again at Calcinato
   (April 19th, 1706); but his skilful antagonist, Vendôme, was
   called away to Flanders, and Prince Eugene so out-manœuvred
   his successors as to be able to join Victor at Turin. The
   French had begun the siege of this place on the 13th of May,
   1706. They had between 50,000 and 60,000 men, and 170 pieces
   of artillery with them." When Prince Eugene, early in
   September, reached the neighborhood of Turin, he concerted
   with Victor Amadeus an attack on the investing army which
   destroyed it completely. "Its relics withdrew in awful
   disorder towards Pinerolo, pursued not only by the victorious
   troops but also by the peasantry, who, besides attachment to
   their princes, obeyed in this instance an instinct of revenge
   against the French, who had barbarously used them. Out of
   50,000 or 60,000 men who had sat down before Turin in March,
   hardly 20,000 recrossed the Alps in September. Three of the
   French generals lay dead on the field; … 6,000 prisoners
   were marched through the streets of the liberated town, and 55
   French banners graced the main altar of the cathedral. In the
   following year, Victor and Eugene, greatly against their
   inclination, were induced by the allies to undertake an
   expedition against Toulon, which, like all previous invasions
   of Provence, led to utter discomfiture, and the loss of 10,000
   combatants (1707, July 1st to September 1st). An attack upon
   Briançon, equally undertaken against the sound judgment of the
   Duke of Savoy, in 1708, led to no better results; but Savoy
   won back Exilles, Perosa, Fenestrelles, and, one by one, all
   the redoubts with which during those wars the Alps were
   bristling.
{1849}
   The war slackened in Italy, and the fates of Europe were
   decided in the Netherlands. … By the Peace of Utrecht [A. D.
   1713] France renounced to Savoy all the invaded territories,
   and, besides, the valleys of Oulx, Cesanne, Bardonneche, and
   Castel Delfino, ancient possessions of Dauphiny, east of the
   Alps, from the 12th century, whilst, for her own part, Savoy
   gave up the western valley of Barcellonette; thus the limits
   between the two nations (with the exception of Savoy and Nice)
   were at last fixed on the mountain-crest, at 'the parting of
   the waters.' By virtue of an agreement signed with Austria,
   November 8th, 1703, the whole of Montferrat, as well as
   Alessandria, Valenza, Lomellina, and Val Sesia, dependencies
   of the duchy of Milan, and the imperial fiefs in the Langhe
   (province of Alba), were ceded to Savoy."

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 5, and 7-9._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapters 68, 69, 73-75, 77 (volume 2-3)._

      See, also,
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1713-1714.
   Milan, Naples and Sardinia ceded to the House of Austria and
   Sicily to the Duke of Savoy.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
   Ambitions of Elizabeth Farnese, the Spanish queen.
   The Austro-Spanish conflict.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   Acquisition of Naples by the Spanish Bourbons.

   By the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V. of Spain
   was left with no dominions in Italy, the Italian possessions
   of the Spanish monarchy having been transferred to Austria.
   Philip might have accepted this arrangement without demur. Not
   so his wife—"Elizabeth Farnese, a lady of the Italian family
   for whom the Duchy of Parma had been created by the Pope. The
   crown of Spain was settled on her step-son. For her own child
   the ambitious queen desired the honours of a crown. Cardinal
   Alberoni, a reckless and ambitious ecclesiastic, was the
   minister of the Spanish court. Under his advice and instigated
   by the queen, Philip claimed the possessions in Italy, which
   in the days of his grandfather had belonged to the Spanish
   crown. When his title to that crown was admitted, he denied
   the right of the other powers of Europe to alienate from it
   its possessions. This was not all: in right of his queen he
   claimed the duchies of Parma and of Tuscany. She determined to
   recover for him all the Italian possessions of the Spanish
   crown, and to add to them the duchies of Parma and Tuscany.
   The Duke of Parma was old and childless. The extinction of the
   reigning line of the Medici was near. Cosmo di Medici, the
   reigning sovereign, was old. His only son, Jean Gaston, was
   not likely to leave heirs. To Parma Elizabeth advanced her
   claims as heiress of the family of Farnese; to Tuscany she
   asserted a more questionable title in right of a descent from
   the family of Medici. These duchies she demanded for her son,
   Don Carlos, in whose behalf she was ready to waive her own
   claims. The success of these demands would have given to the
   Spanish monarchy even greater power than it had before
   enjoyed. To Naples, Sicily, and Milan, would have been added
   the territories of Parma and Tuscany. All Europe denounced the
   ambitious projects of Alberoni as entirely inconsistent with
   that balance of power which it had then become a political
   superstition to uphold. Philip's French relatives were
   determined in opposition to his claims; and to resist them the
   quadruple alliance was formed between Holland, England, France
   and the emperor. The parties to this alliance offered to the
   Spanish Bourbons that the emperor should settle on Don Carlos
   the reversion to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany on their
   lapsing to him by the failure of the reigning families without
   heirs. These proposals were rejected, and it was not until the
   Spanish court found the combination of four powerful monarchs
   too strong for them, that they reluctantly acceded to the
   terms of the Quadruple Alliance, and accepted for Don Carlos
   the promised reversion of Parma and Tuscany. To induce the
   emperor to accede to this arrangement the Duke of Savoy was
   compelled to surrender to him his newly-acquired kingdom of
   Sicily, receiving instead the island of Sardinia with its
   kingly title. It is as kings of Sardinia that the princes of
   Savoy have since been known in European history. The treaty of
   the quadruple alliance was thus the second by which at this
   period the European powers attempted to arrange the affairs of
   Italy. This treaty left the house of Austria in possession of
   Sicily and Naples. It was assented to by Spain in 1720.
   European complications unconnected with Italy produced new
   wars and a new treaty; and the treaty of Seville in 1724,
   followed by one entered into at Vienna two years later,
   confirmed Don Carlos in the duchy of Parma, of which, on the
   death of the last of the Farnese in 1734, he entered into
   possession. A dispute as to the election of a king of Poland
   gave the Spanish court an opportunity of once more attempting
   the resumption of the Neapolitan dominions. Don Carlos, the
   second son of Philip and Elizabeth, was now just grown to
   man's estate. His father placed in his hand the sword which he
   himself had received from Louis XIV. Don Carlos was but
   seventeen years old when he took possession of his sovereignty
   of Parma. In the same year [1734] he was called from it to
   invade the Sicilian dominions of Austria. He conquered in
   succession the continental territories, and the island of
   Sicily; and on the 15th of June, 1734, he was proclaimed as
   King of the Two Sicilies. The war of the Polish Succession was
   ended in the following year by a peace, the preliminaries of
   which were signed at Vienna. In this treaty an entirely new
   arrangement of Italian affairs was introduced. The rights of
   Don Carlos to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily were
   recognised. Parma was surrendered to the emperor; and, lastly,
   the duchy of Tuscany was disposed of to a new claimant
   [Francis of Lorraine] for the honours of an Italian prince."

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese,
      chapters 2-10._

      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734-1856,
      book 1, chapter 1-2._

      See, also,
      SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ITALY: A. D. 1719.
   The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchange Sardinia for
   Sicily.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

ITALY: A. D. 1733-1735.
   Franco-Austrian War.
   Invasion of the Milanese by the French.
   Naples and Sicily occupied by the Spaniards and erected into a
   kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

{1850}

ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Ambitious undertakings of Spain.

   "The struggle between England and Spain had altogether merged
   in the great European war, and the chief efforts of the
   Spaniards were directed against the Austrian dominions in
   Italy.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

   The kingdom of Naples, which had passed under Austrian rule
   during the war of the [Spanish] Succession, had, as we have
   seen, been restored to the Spanish line in the war which ended
   in 1740, and Don Carlos, who ruled it, was altogether
   subservient to Spanish policy. The Duke of Lorraine, the
   husband of Maria Theresa, was sovereign of Tuscany; and the
   Austrian possessions consisted of the Duchy of Milan, and the
   provinces of Mantua and Placentia. They were garrisoned at the
   opening of the war by only 15,000 men, and their most
   dangerous enemy was the King of Sardinia, who had gradually
   extended his dominions into Lombardy, and whose army was,
   probably, the largest and most efficient in Italy. 'The
   Milanese,' his father is reported to have said, 'is like an
   artichoke, to be eaten leaf by leaf,' and the skill and
   perseverance with which for many generations the House of
   Savoy pursued that policy, have in our own day had their
   reward. Spanish troops had landed at Naples as early as
   November 1741. The King of Sardinia, the Prince of Modena, and
   the Republic of Genoa were on the same side. Venice was
   completely neutral, Tuscany was compelled to declare herself
   so, and a French army was soon to cross the Alps. The King of
   Sardinia, however, at this critical moment, was alarmed by the
   ambitious projects openly avowed by the Spaniards, and he was
   induced by English influence to change sides. He obtained the
   promise of certain territorial concessions from Austria, and
   of an annual subsidy of £200,000 from England; and on these
   conditions he suddenly marched with an army of 30,000 men to
   the support of the Austrians. An the plans of the confederates
   were disconcerted by this defection. The Spaniards went into
   winter quarters near Bologna in October, fought an
   unsuccessful battle at Campo Santo in the following February
   [1743], and then retired to Rimini, leaving Lombardy in
   complete tranquillity. The British fleet in the Mediterranean
   had been largely strengthened by Carteret, and it did good
   service to the cause. It burnt a Spanish squadron in the
   French port of St. Tropez, compelled the King of Naples, by
   the threat of bombardment, to withdraw his troops from the
   Spanish army, and sign an engagement of neutrality, destroyed
   large provisions of corn collected by the Genoese for the
   Spanish army, and cut off that army from all communications by
   sea."

       _W. E. H. Lecky,
       History of England, 18th Century,
       chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 102 (volume 3)._

ITALY: A. D. 1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Treaty of Worms.

   "By a treaty between Great Britain, the Queen of Hungary, and
   the King of Sardinia, signed at Worms September 23rd, 1743,
   Charles Emanuel renounced his pretensions to Milan; the Queen
   of Hungary ceding to him the Vigevanesco, that part of the
   duchy of Pavia between the Po and the Tessino, the town and
   part of the duchy of Piacenza, and a portion of the district
   of Anghiera. Also whatever rights she might have to the
   marquisate of Finale hoping that the Republic of Genoa would
   facilitate this agreement, in order that the King of Sardinia
   might have a communication with the sea. The Queen of Hungary
   promised to increase her army in Italy to 30,000 men as soon
   as the affairs of Germany would permit; while the King of
   Great Britain engaged to keep a strong fleet in the
   Mediterranean, and to pay Charles Emanuel annually £200,000,
   so long as the war lasted, he keeping in the field an army of
   45,000 men."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

ITALY: A. D. 1743.
   The Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain) for establishing
   Spanish claims.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1744.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Indecisive campaigns.

   "In Italy, the discordant views and mutual jealousies of Maria
   Theresa and the king of Sardinia prevented the good effects
   which might have been derived from their recent union. The
   king was anxious to secure his own dominions on the side of
   France, and to conquer the marquisate of Finale; while Maria
   Theresa was desirous to direct her principal force against
   Naples, and recover possession of the two Sicilies. Hence,
   instead of co-operating for one great object, their forces
   were divided; and, after an arduous and active campaign, the
   Austrians were nearly in the same situation as at the
   commencement of the year. Prince Lobcowitz being reinforced,
   compelled the Spaniards to retreat successively from Pesara
   and Senegallia, attacked them at Loretto and Reconati, and
   drove them beyond the Fronto, the boundary of the kingdom of
   Naples. Alarmed by the advance of the Austrians, the king of
   Naples broke his neutrality, quitted his capital at the head
   of 15,000 men, and hastened to join the Spaniards. But Prince
   Lobcowitz … turned towards Rome, with the hope of
   penetrating into Naples on that side; and, in the commencement
   of June, reached the neighbourhood of Albano. His views were
   anticipated by the king of Naples, who, dividing the Spanish
   and Neapolitan troops into three columns, which were led by
   himself, the duke of Modena, and the count de Gages, passed
   through Anagm, Valmonte, and Monte Tortino, and reunited his
   forces at Veletri, in the Campagna di Roma. In this situation,
   the two hostile armies, separated only by a deep valley,
   harassed each other with continual skirmishes. At length
   prince Lobcowitz, in imitation of prince Eugene at Cremona,
   formed the project of surprising the head-quarters of the king
   of Naples. In the night of August 10th, a corps of Austrians,
   led by count Brown, penetrated into the town of Veletri,
   killed all who resisted, and would have surprised the king and
   the duke of Modena in their beds, had they not been alarmed by
   the French ambassador, and escaped to the camp. The Austrian
   troops, giving way to pillage, were vigorously attacked by a
   corps of Spaniards and Neapolitans, despatched from the camp,
   and driven from the town with great slaughter, and the capture
   of the second in command, the marquis de Novati. In this
   contest, however, the Spanish army lost no less than 3,000
   men. This daring exploit was the last offensive attempt of the
   Austrian forces. Prince Lobcowitz perceiving his troops
   rapidly decrease by the effects of the climate, and the
   unwholesome air of the Pontine marshes, began his retreat in
   the beginning of November, and though followed by an army
   superior in number, returned without loss to Rimini, Pesaro,
   Cesano, and Immola; while the combined Spaniards and
   Neapolitans took up their quarters between Viterbo and Civita
   Vecchia.
{1851}
   In consequence of the expedition against Naples, the king of
   Sardinia was left with 30,000 men, many of them new levies,
   and 6,000 Austrians, to oppose the combined army of French and
   Spaniards, who advanced on the side of Nice. After occupying
   that place, the united army forced the intrenched camp of the
   Sardinians, though defended by the king himself, made
   themselves masters of Montalbano and Villafranca, and prepared
   to penetrate into Piedmont along the sea coast. The Genoese,
   irritated by the transfer of Finale, were inclined to
   facilitate their operations; but were intimidated by the
   presence of an English squadron which threatened to bombard
   their capital. The prince of Conti, who commanded under the
   infant Don Philip, did not, however, relinquish the invasion
   of Piedmont, but formed the spirited project of leading his
   army over the passes of the Alps, although almost every rock
   was a fortress, and the obstacles of nature were assisted by
   all the resources of art. He led his army, with a large train
   of artillery, and numerous squadrons of cavalry, over
   precipices and along beds of torrents, carried the fort of
   Chateau Dauphin, forced the celebrated Barricades which were
   deemed impregnable, descended the valley of the Stura, took
   Demont after a slight resistance, and laid siege to Coni. The
   king of Sardinia, having in vain attempted to stop the
   progress of this torrent which burst the barriers of his
   country, indignantly retired to Saluzzo, to cover his capital.
   Being reinforced by 6,000 Austrians, he attempted to relieve
   Coni, but was repulsed after a severe engagement, though he
   succeeded in throwing succours into the town. This victory,
   however, did not produce any permanent advantage to the
   confederate forces; Coni continuing to hold out, the approach
   of winter and the losses they had sustained, amounting to
   10,000 men, compelled them to raise the siege and repass the
   Alps, which they did not effect without extreme difficulty."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 105 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, chapter 28._

ITALY: A. D. 1745.
   The War of he Austrian Succession:
   Successes of the Spaniards, French and Genoese.

   "The Italian campaign of 1745, in boldness of design and
   rapidity of execution, scarcely finds a parallel in military
   history, and was most unpropitious to the Queen of Hungary and
   King of Sardinia. The experience of preceding years had taught
   the Bourbon Courts that all attempts to carry their arms
   across the Alps would be fruitless, unless they could secure a
   stable footing in the dominions of some Italian state on the
   other side, to counteract the power of their adversary, who
   had the entire command of the passes between Germany and
   Italy, by means of which reinforcements could be continually
   drafted to the scene of action. Accordingly they availed
   themselves of the jealousy and alarm excited at Genoa, by the
   transfer of Finale to the King of Sardinia, to engage that
   republic on their side. The plan was to unite the two armies
   which had wintered on the distant frontiers of Naples and
   Provence, in the vicinity of Genoa, where they were to be
   joined by 10,000 auxiliaries on the part of the republic.
   Charles Emanuel was sensible of the terrible consequences to
   himself, should the Genoese declare openly for the house of
   Bourbon, and sent General Pallavicini, a man of address and
   abilities, to renounce his pretensions to Finale, while
   Admiral Rowley, with a British fleet, hovered on their coasts.
   In spite of all this, nevertheless, the treaty of Aranjuez was
   concluded between France, Spain, and Genoa. After surmounting
   amazing difficulties, and making the most arduous and
   astonishing marches, the army commanded by Don Philip, who was
   accompanied by the French General Maillebois, and that
   commanded by Count de Gages, effected their junction on the
   14th of June, near Genoa, when their united forces, now under
   Don Philip, amounted to 78,000 men. All that the King of
   Sardinia could do under these circumstances, was to make the
   best dispositions to defend the Milanese, the Parmesan, and
   the Plaisantine; but the whole disposable force under the King
   and Count Schulenburg, the successor of Lobkowitz, did not
   amount to above 45,000 men. Count Gages with 30,000 men was to
   be opposed to Schulenburg, and took possession of Serravalle,
   on the Scrivia; then advancing towards Alessandria he obliged
   the Austrians to retire under the cannon of Tortona. Don
   Philip made himself master of Acqui, so that the King of
   Sardinia, with the Austrian General, Count Schulenburg, had to
   retreat behind the Tanaro. On the 24th of July the strong
   citadel of Tortona was taken by the Spaniards, which opened
   the way to the occupation of Parma and Placentia. The combined
   army of French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Genoese being now
   masters of an extensive tract with all the principal towns
   south of the Po, they readily effected a passage near the
   confluence of the Ticino, and with a detachment surprised
   Pavia. The Austrians, fearful for the Milanese, separated
   accordingly from the Sardinian troops. The Bourbon force
   seeing this, suddenly reunited, gained the Tanaro by a rapid
   movement on the night of the 27th of September, forded it in
   three columns, although the water reached to the very necks of
   the soldiers, fell upon the unsuspecting and unprepared
   Sardinians, broke their cavalry in the first charge, and drove
   the enemy in dismay and confusion to Valenza. Charles Emanuel
   fled to Casale, where he reassembled his broken army, in order
   to save it from utter ruin. The confederate armies still
   advanced, drove the King back and took Trino and Verua, which
   last place lay but twenty miles from his capital: fearful now
   that this might be bombarded he hastened thither, withdrew his
   forces under its cannon, and ordered the pavement of the city
   to be taken up. Maillebois, on his side, penetrated into the
   Milanese, and by the month of October the territories of the
   house of Austria in Italy were wholly subdued. The whole of
   Lombardy being thus open, Don Philip made a triumphant entry
   into Milan on the 20th of December, fondly hoping that he had
   secured for himself an Italian kingdom, as his brother, Don
   Carlos, had done at Naples. The Austrian garrison, however,
   still maintained the citadel of Milan and the fortress of
   Mantua."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,
      volume 2, pages 75-76._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

{1852}

ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: A turn of fortune.
   The Spaniards and French abandon North Italy.
   The Austrians in Genoa, and their expulsion from the city.

   "Of all the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, little remained
   except the fortress of Mantua and the citadel of Milan; while
   the citadels of Asti and Alessandria, the keys of Piedmont,
   were expected to fall before the commencement of the ensuing
   campaign. On the return of the season for action, the struggle
   for the mastery of Italy was renewed, and the queen of Spain
   already saw in imagination the crown of Lombardy gracing the
   brow of her second son. On the east, the French and Spanish
   armies had extended themselves as far as Reggio, Placentia,
   and Guastalla; on the north they were masters of the whole
   country between the Adda and Tesino; they blockaded the
   passages by the lake of Como and the Lago Maggiore, and were
   preparing to reduce the citadel of Milan; on the west their
   posts extended as far as Casale and Asti, though of the last
   the citadel was still held by the Sardinians. The main body of
   the French secured the communication with Genoa and the
   country south of the Po; a strong body at Reggio, Parma, and
   Placentia, covered their conquests on the east; and the
   Spaniards commanded the district between the Po and the
   mountains of Tyrol. The Sardinians were collected into the
   neighbourhood of Trino; while the Austrians fell back into the
   Novarrese to effect a junction with the reinforcements which
   were daily expected from Germany. In this situation, a sudden
   revolution took place in the fortune of the war. The empress
   queen [Maria Theresa], by the conclusion of a peace with
   Prussia, was at liberty to reinforce her army in Italy, and
   before the end of February 30,000 men had already descended
   from the Trentine Alps, and spread themselves as far as the
   Po." This change of situation caused the French court to make
   overtures to the king of Sardinia, which gave great offense to
   Spain. The wily Sardinian gained time by his negotiations with
   the French, until he found an opportunity, by suddenly ending
   the armistice, to capture the French garrison in Asti, to
   relieve the citadel of Alessandria and to lay siege to
   Valenza. "These disasters compelled Maillebois [the French
   general] to abandon his distant posts and concentrate his
   forces between Novi and Voghera, in order to maintain the
   communication with Genoa. Nor were the Spaniards beyond the Po
   in a less critical situation. A column of 10,000 Austrians
   under Berenclau having captured Codogno, and advanced to Lodi,
   the Spanish general was compelled to withdraw his troops from
   the passes towards the lakes, to send his artillery to Pavia
   and draw towards the Po. The infant had scarcely quitted Milan
   before a party of Austrian hussars entered the place."
   Meantime, the Spanish general Castelar, blockaded in Parma by
   the Austrians, broke through their lines and gained the
   eastern Riviera, with the loss of half his force. In June, the
   Spaniards and French, concentrated at Placentia, made a
   powerful attack on the Austrians, to arrest their progress,
   but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Sardinians soon
   afterwards formed a junction with the Austrians, which
   compelled the Spaniards and French to evacuate Placentia and
   retreat to Genoa, abandoning stores and artillery and losing
   many men. In the midst of these disasters, the Spanish king,
   Philip V., died, and his widowed queen, Elizabeth Farnese
   —the "Spanish termagant," Carlyle calls her—who had been
   the moving spirit of the struggle for Italy, lost the reins of
   government. His son (by his first wife, Maria Louisa of Savoy)
   who succeeded him, had no ambitions and no passions to
   interest him in the war, and resolved to escape from it. The
   marquis Las Minas, whom he sent to take command of the
   retreating army, speedily announced his intention to abandon
   Italy. "Thus deserted, the situation of the French and Genoese
   became desperate. … Maillebois, after exhorting the Genoese
   to defend their territory to the last extremity, was obliged
   to follow the example of Las Minas in withdrawing towards
   Provence. Abandoned to their fate, the Genoese could not
   withstand the combined attacks of the Austro-Sardinians,
   assisted by the British fleet. The city surrendered almost at
   discretion; the garrison were made prisoners of war; the
   stores, arms and artillery were to be delivered; the doge and
   six senators to repair to Vienna and implore forgiveness. The
   marquis of Botta, who had replaced Lichtenstein in the
   command, took possession of the place with 15,000 men, while
   the king of Sardinia occupied Finale and reduced Savona. In
   consequence of this success the Austrian court meditated the
   re-conquest of Naples and Sicily, which had been drained of
   troops to support the war in Lombardy." But this project was
   overruled by the British government, and the allied army
   crossed the Var, to carry the war into the southeastern
   provinces of France. "Their progress was, however, instantly
   arrested by an insurrection at Genoa, occasioned by the
   exactions and oppressions of the Austrian commanders. The
   garrison was expelled by the tumultuary efforts of the
   populace; and the army, to obviate the mischiefs of this
   unexpected reverse, hastily measured back its steps. Instead
   of completing the disasters of the Bourbon troops, the
   Austro-Sardinians employed the whole winter in the investment
   of Genoa." The siege was protracted but unsuccessful, and the
   allies were forced to abandon it the following summer, on the
   approach of the Bourbon forces, which resumed the offensive
   under Marshal Belleisle. After delivering Genoa, the latter
   sent a detachment of his army into Piedmont, where it met with
   disaster. No further operations of importance were undertaken
   before the conclusion of the peace, which was then being
   negotiated at Aix-la-Chapelle.

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 46-48 (volumes 3-4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 16._

ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Peace in the Peninsula.

   The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle "left nothing to Austria in
   Italy except the duchies of Milan and Mantua. Although the
   grand-duchy of Tuscany was settled on the family of
   Hapsburg-Lorraine, every precaution was taken to prevent that
   province from being united with the German possessions of
   their house. The arrangements of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle
   continued up to the period of the French revolution
   undisturbed. Those arrangements, although the result of a
   compromise of the interests and ambitions of rival statesmen,
   were not, considering the previous state of Italy,
   unfavourable to the cause of Italian independence.
{1853}
   Piedmont, already recognised as the protector of Italian
   nationality, gained not only in rank, but in substantial
   territory, by the acquisition of the island of Sardinia, still
   more by that of the High Novarese, and by extending her
   frontier to the Ticino. Naples and Sicily were released from
   the tyranny of viceroys, and placed under a resident king,
   with a stipulation to secure their future independence, that
   they should never be united to the Spanish crown. … In the
   45 [?] years which elapsed between the treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle and the French revolution, Italy enjoyed a
   perfect and uninterrupted peace. In some, at least, of its
   principalities, its progress in prosperity and in legislation
   was rapid. Naples and Sicily, under the government of Charles
   III., and subsequently under the regency of his minister,
   Tanucci, were ruled with energy and prudence. Tuscany
   prospered under the sway of the princes of Lorraine, Milan and
   Mantua were mildly governed by the Austrian court; and
   Lombardy rose from the misery to which the exactions of
   Spanish viceroys had reduced even the great resources of that
   rich and fertile province. In the other Italian States at
   least no change had taken place for the worse. Industry
   everywhere flourished under the presence of the most essential
   of all blessings,—peace."

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

ITALY: A. D. 1792-1793.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
   Sardinia and the Two Sicilies in the coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Passes of the Maritime Alps secured by the French.
   The coalition abandoned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
   French successes at Loano.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   French invasion.
   Bonaparte's first campaigns.
   His victories and his pillage.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   French treaties with Genoa and Naples.
   The Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
   Surrender of Papal territories.
   Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
   Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
   The Peace of Campo-Formio.
   Lombardy relinquished by Austria.
   Venice and Venetian territory made over to her.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

ITALY: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Overthrow of the Neapolitan Kingdom.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.
   Relinquishment of Piedmont by the king of Sardinia.
   French reverses.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-AUGUST).
   Successful Austro-Russian campaign.
   Suwarrow's victories.
   French evacuation of Lombardy, Piedmont and Naples.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   Austrian successes.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Fall of the Parthenopeian and Roman Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1800.
   Bonaparte's Marengo campaign.
   Northern Italy recovered by the French.
   Siege and capture of Genoa by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
   The king of Naples spared by Napoleon.
   Restoration of Papal authority at Rome.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1802.
   Name of the Cisalpine Republic changed to Italian Republic.
   Bonaparte president.
   Annexation of part of Piedmont, with Parma and Elba, to
   France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803,
      and 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
   Transformation of the Italian Republic into the Kingdom of
   Italy.
   Election and coronation of Napoleon.
   Annexation of Genoa to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

ITALY: A. D. 1805.
   Cession of Venetian territory by Austria to the Kingdom of
   Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

ITALY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Napoleon's dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
   Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's visit.
   His arbitrary changes in the constitution.
   His public works.
   His despotism.
   His annexation of Tuscany to France, and seizure of the Papal
   States.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
   The crown of Naples resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of
   Spain) and conferred on Joachim Murat.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1808-1809.
   Beginning of the reign of Murat at Naples.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Insolence of Murat's soldiery.
   Popular discontent and hatred.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

   "Joachim Murat, the new King of Naples, announced his
   accession to the nation [July, 1808]. 'The august Napoleon,'
   he said, 'had given him the kingdom of the two Sicilies.
   Gratitude to the donor, and a desire to benefit his subjects,
   would divide his heart.' … The commencement of Murat's reign
   was felicitous; the English, however, occupied the island of
   Capri, which, being placed at the opening of the gulf, is the
   key of the bay of Naples. Their presence stimulated all who
   were averse to the new government, intimidated its adherents,
   and impeded the freedom of navigation, to the manifest injury
   of commerce; besides, it was considered disgraceful, that one
   of the Napoleonides should suffer an enemy so near, and that
   enemy the English, who were at once so hated and so despised.
   The indolence of Joseph had patiently suffered the disgrace;
   but Joachim, a spirited soldier, was indignant at it, and he
   thought it necessary to commence his reign by some important
   enterprise. He armed therefore against Capri: Sir Hudson Lowe
   was there in garrison with two regiments collected from all
   the nations of Europe, and which were called the Royal
   Corsican and the Royal Maltese. … A body of French and
   Neapolitans were sent from Naples and Salerno, under the
   command of General Lamarque, to reduce the island; and they
   effected a landing, by means of ladders hung to the rocks by
   iron hooks, and thus possessed themselves of Anacarpi, though
   not without great difficulty, as the English resolutely
   defended themselves. …
{1854}
   The siege proceeded but slowly—succours of men and
   ammunition reached the besieged from Sicily; but fortune
   favoured the enemy, as an adverse wind drove the English out
   to sea. The King, who superintended the operations from the
   shore of Massa, having waited at the point of Campanella,
   seizing the propitious moment, sent fresh squadrons in aid of
   Lamarque, and the English, being already broken, and the forts
   dismantled, now yielded to the conqueror. The Neapolitans were
   highly gratified by the acquisition of Capri, and from that
   event augured well of the new government. The kingdom of
   Naples contained three classes of people—barons, republicans,
   and populace. The barons willingly joined the party of the new
   king, because they were pleased by the honours granted to
   them, and they were not without hopes of recovering their
   ancient privileges, or at least of acquiring new ones. … The
   republicans were, on the contrary, inimical to Joachim, not
   because he was a king, for they easily accommodated themselves
   to royalty; but because his conduct in Tuscany, where he had
   driven them forth or bound them in chains like malefactors,
   had rendered him personally obnoxious to them. They were
   moreover disgusted by his incredible vanity, which led him to
   court and caress with the most zealous adulation every bearer
   of a feudal title. … The populace, who cared no more for
   Joachim than they had done for Joseph, would easily have
   contented themselves with the new government, if it had
   protected them from the oppressions of the barons, and had
   procured for them quiet and abundance. But Joachim, wholly
   intent on courting the nobles, neglected the people, who,
   oppressed by the barons and soldiery, became alienated from
   him. … The spirit of discontent was further increased by his
   introduction of the conscription laws of France. … Joachim,
   a soldier himself, permitted every thing to his soldiery; and
   an insupportable military license was the result. Hence, also,
   they became the sole support of his power, and it took no root
   in the affections of the people. The insolence of the troops
   continually augmented not only every desire, but every caprice
   of the head of a regiment, nay, even of the inferior officers,
   was to be complied with, as if they were the laws of the
   realm; and whosoever even lamented his subjection to their
   will was ill-treated and incurred some risk of being declared
   an enemy to the King. … The discontents produced by the
   enormities committed by the troops of Murat gave hopes to the
   court of Palermo that its fortunes might be re-established in
   the kingdom beyond the Faro. Meanwhile, the civil war raged in
   Calabria; nor were the Abruzzi tranquil. In these disturbances
   there were various factions in arms, and various objects were
   pursued: some of those who fought against Joachim, and had
   fought against Joseph, were adherents of Ferdinand,—others
   were the partisans of a republican constitution. … The sect
   of the Carbonari arose at this period."

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapter 5._

   "The most famous, the most widely disseminated, and the most
   powerful of all the secret societies which sprang up in Italy
   was that of the Carbonari, or Charcoal-makers. … The
   Carbonari first began to attract attention in the Kingdom of
   Naples about the year 1808. A Genoese named Maghella, who
   burned with hatred of the French, is said to have initiated
   several Neapolitans into a secret order whose purpose it was
   to goad their countrymen into rebellion. They quitted Naples,
   where Murat's vigilant policy kept too strict a watch on
   conspirators, and retired to the Abruzzi, where in order to
   disarm suspicion they pretended to be engaged in
   charcoal-burning. As their numbers increased, agents were sent
   to establish lodges in the principal towns. The Bourbon king,
   shut up in Sicily, soon heard of them, and as he had not
   hesitated at letting loose with English aid galley-prisoners,
   or at encouraging brigands, to harass Murat, so he eagerly
   connived with these conspirators in the hope of recovering his
   throne. Murat, having striven for several years to suppress
   the Carbonari, at last, when he found his power slipping from
   him, reversed his policy towards them, and strove to
   conciliate them. But it was too late: neither he nor they
   could prevent the restoration of the Bourbons under the
   protection of Austria. The sectaries who had hitherto
   foolishly expected that, if the French could be expelled,
   Ferdinand would grant them a Liberal government, were soon
   cured of their delusion, and they now plotted against him as
   sedulously as they had plotted against his predecessor. Their
   membership increased to myriads; their lodges, starting up in
   every village in the Kingdom of Naples, had relations with
   branch-societies in all parts of the Peninsula: to the anxious
   ears of European despots the name Carbonaro soon meant all
   that was lawless and terrible; it meant anarchy, chaos,
   assassination. But when we read the catechism, or confession
   of faith, of the Carbonari we are surprised by the
   reasonableness of their aims and tenets. The duties of the
   individual Carbonaro were, 'to render to the Almighty the
   worship due to Him; to serve the fatherland with zeal; to
   reverence religion and laws; to fulfil the obligations of
   nature and friendship; to be faithful to promises; to observe
   silence, discretion, and charity; to cause harmony and good
   morals to prevail; to conquer the passions and submit the
   will; and to abhor the seven deadly sins.' The scope of the
   Society was to disseminate instruction; to unite the different
   classes of society under the bond of love; to impress a
   national character on the people, and to interest them in the
   preservation and defense of the fatherland and of religion; to
   destroy by moral culture the source of crimes due to the
   general depravity of mankind; to protect the weak and to raise
   up the unfortunate. … It went still farther and asserted the
   un-Catholic doctrine of liberty of conscience: 'to every
   Carbonaro,' so reads one of its articles, 'belongs the natural
   and unalterable right to worship the Almighty according to his
   own intuition and understanding.' We must not be misled,
   however, by these enlightened professions, into a wrong notion
   of the real purposes of Carbonarism. Politics, in spite of a
   rule forbidding political discussion, were the main business,
   and ethics but the incidental concern of the conspirators.
   They organized their Order under republican forms as if to
   prefigure the ideal towards which they aspired. The Republic
   was subdivided into provinces, each of which was controlled by
   a grand lodge, that of Salerno being the 'parent.' There were
   also four 'Tribes,' each having a council and holding an
   annual diet.
{1855}
   Each tribe had a Senate, which advised a House of
   Representatives, and this framed the laws which a magistracy
   executed. There were courts of the first instance, of appeal,
   and of cessation, and no Carbonaro might bring suit in the
   civil courts against a fellow member, unless he had first
   failed to get redress in one of these. … The Carbonari
   borrowed some of their rites from the Freemasons, with whom
   indeed they were commonly reported to be in such close
   relations that Freemasons who joined the 'Carbonic Republic'
   were spared the formality of initiation; other parts of their
   ceremonial they copied from the New Testament, with such
   additions as the special objects of the order called for."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of the Kingdom of Naples,
      book 7 (volume 2)._

      _T. Frost,
      Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _General Sir H. Bunbury,
      The Great War with France,
      page 343, and after._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution
      chapter 3._

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-MAY).
   Renewed war of Austria with France.
   Austrian advance and retreat.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (MAY-JULY).
   Annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire.
   Removal of the Pope to Savona.
   Rome declared to be a free and imperial city.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.
   Removal of the captive Pope to Fontainebleau.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.
   Participation in Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER), and after.

ITALY: A. D. 1813.
   Participation in the war in Germany.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1814.
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   His treaty with the Allies.
   Expulsion of the French from the Peninsula.

   Murat, king of Naples, "foreseeing the downfall of the
   Emperor, had attempted to procure from Napoleon, as the price
   of his fidelity, the union under his own sceptre of all Italy
   south of the Po; but, failing in this, he prepared to abandon
   the cause of his benefactor. On the 11th January, 1814, he
   concluded a treaty with the Allies, by which he was guaranteed
   possession of Naples; and forthwith advancing on Rome with
   20,000 men, occupied the second city in his brother-in-law's
   empire (January 19); having previously published a flaming
   proclamation, in which the perfidy and violence of the
   imperial government were denounced in terms which came
   strangely from a chief of the Revolution. … At the end of
   December, 1813, Eugene had withdrawn to the Adige with 36,000
   men, before Bellegarde and 50,000 Austrians; and he was
   already taking measures for a further retreat, when the
   proclamation of Murat, and his hostile advance, rendered such
   a movement inevitable. He had accordingly fallen back to the
   Mincio, when, finding himself threatened on the flank by a
   British expedition from Sicily under Lord William Bentinck, he
   determined on again advancing against Bellegarde, so as to rid
   himself of one enemy before he encountered another. The two
   armies, however, thus mutually acting on the offensive, passed
   each other, and an irregular action at last ensued on the
   Mincio (February 8), in which the advantage was rather with
   the French, who made 1,500 prisoners, and drove Bellegarde
   shortly after over the Mincio, about 3,000 being killed and
   wounded on each side. But, in other quarters, affairs were
   going rapidly to wreck. Verona surrendered to the Austrians on
   the 14th, and Ancona to Murat on the 16th; and the desertion
   of the Italians, unequal to the fatigues of a winter campaign,
   was so great that the Viceroy was compelled to fall back to
   the Po. Fouché, meanwhile, as governor of Rome, had concluded
   a convention (February 20) with the Neapolitan generals for
   the evacuation of Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, and other garrisons
   of the French empire in Italy. A proclamation, however, by the
   hereditary prince of Sicily, who had accompanied Bentinck from
   Sicily, gave Murat such umbrage that he separated his troops
   from the British, and commenced operations, with little
   success, against Eugene on the Po, in which the remainder of
   March passed away. Bentinck, having at length received
   reinforcements from Catalonia, moved forward with 12,000 men,
   and occupied Spezia on the 29th of March, and, driving the
   French (April 8) from their position at Sestri, forced his way
   through the mountains, and appeared on the 16th in front of
   Genoa. On the 17th the forts and positions before the city
   were stormed; and the garrison, seeing preparations made for a
   bombardment, capitulated on the 18th, on condition of being
   allowed to march out with the honours of war. Murat had by
   this time recommenced vigorous operations, and after driving
   the French (April 13) from the Taro, had forced the passage of
   the Stura; but the news of Napoleon's fall put an end to
   hostilities. By a convention with the Austrians, Venice,
   Palma-Nuova, and the other fortresses still held by the
   French, were surrendered; the whole of Lombardy was occupied
   by the Germans; and in the first week of May the French troops
   finally repassed the Alps."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 775, and 807-808._

ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Return of the Despots.
   Restoration of Austrian tyranny in the North.
   The Pope in Rome again.

   "With little resistance, Northern Italy was taken from the
   French. Had it been otherwise, had Murat and Beauharnais
   joined their forces, they might have long held the Austrians
   in check, perhaps even have made a descent on Vienna; and
   although this might not have hindered the ultimate overthrow
   of Napoleon, yet it must have compelled the Allies, at the day
   of settlement, to respect the wishes of the Italians. But
   disunited, and deluded into the belief that they were partners
   in a war of liberation, the Italians woke up to find that they
   had escaped from the talons of the French eagle, only to be
   caught in the clutch of the two-headed monstrosity of Austria.
   They were to be used, in the language of Joseph De Maistre,
   like coins, wherewith the Allies paid their debts. This was
   plain enough when the people of the just-destroyed Kingdom of
   Italy prepared to choose a ruler for themselves: one party
   favored Beauharnais, another wished an Austrian prince, a
   third an Italian, but all agreed in demanding independence.
   Austria quickly informed them that they were her subjects, and
   that their affairs would be decided at Vienna. Thus, almost
   without striking a blow, and without a suspicion of the lot
   awaiting them, the Northern Italians fell back under the
   domination of Austria. In the spring and early summer of 1814
   the exiled princelings returned: Victor Emanuel I. from his
   savage refuge in Sardinia to Turin; Ferdinand III. from
   Würzburg to Florence; Pius VII. from his confinement at
   Fontainebleau and Savona to Rome.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814;

{1856}

   Francis IV. to Modena. Other aspirants anxiously waited for
   the Congress of Vienna to bestow upon them the remaining
   provinces. The Congress … dragged on into the spring of the
   following year. … In Lombardy and Venetia, Metternich soon
   organized a thoroughly Austrian administration. The government
   of the two provinces was separate, that of Lombardy being
   centred at Milan, that of Venetia at Venice; but over all was
   placed an Austrian archduke as Viceroy. Each district had its
   civil and military tribunals, but the men who composed these
   being appointees of the viceroy or his deputies, their
   subservience could usually be reckoned upon. The trials were
   secret, a provision which, especially in political cases, made
   convictions easy. … Feudal privileges, which had been
   abolished by the French, could be recovered by doing homage to
   the Emperor and by paying specific taxes. In some respects
   there was an improvement in the general administration, but in
   others the deterioration was manifest. … Art, science, and
   literature were patronized, and they throve as potted plants
   thrive under the care of a gardener who cuts off every new
   shoot at a certain height. … We may liken the people of the
   Austro-Italian provinces to those Florentine revelers who, at
   the time of the plague, tried to drive away their terror by
   telling each other the merry stories reported by Boccaccio.
   The plague which penetrated every corner of Lombardy and
   Venetia was the Austrian police. Stealthy, but sure, its
   unseen presence was dreaded in palace and hovel, in church,
   tribunal, and closet. … Every police-office was crammed with
   records of the daily habits of each citizen, of his visitors,
   his relatives, his casual conversations,—even his style of
   dress and diet were set down. … Such was the Metternichian
   system of police and espionage that counteracted every mild
   law and every attempt to lessen the repugnance of the
   Italians. They were not to be deceived by blandishments:
   Lombardy was a prison, Venetia was a prison, and they were all
   captives, although they seemed to move about unshackled to
   their work or pleasure."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and HOLY ALLIANCE.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head a national movement.
   His failure, downfall and death.
   Restoration of the Bourbons at Naples.

   "Wild as was the attempt in which, after Napoleon's return
   from Elba, the King of Naples lost his crown, we must yet
   judge of it both by his own character and the circumstances in
   which he was placed. … In the autumn of 1813 communications
   took place at Milan between Murat and the leaders of the
   secret societies which were then attempting to organise
   Italian patriotism in arms. In 1814, when the restoration of
   Austrian rule in Lombardy so cruelly disappointed the national
   hopes, these communications were renewed. The King of Naples
   was assured that he needed but to raise the standard of
   Italian independence to rally round him thousands and tens of
   thousands of volunteers. … These calculations … were
   readily adopted by the rash and vain-glorious monarch to whom
   they were presented. … His proud spirit chafed and fretted
   under the consciousness that he had turned upon Napoleon, and
   the mortification of finding himself deserted by those in
   reliance upon whose faith this sacrifice had been made. The
   events in France had taken him by surprise. In joining the
   alliance against Napoleon he had not calculated on the
   deposition of the emperor, still less had he dreamed of the
   destruction of the empire. … He bitterly reproached his own
   conduct for having lent himself to such results. … When his
   mind was agitated with these mingled feelings, the
   intelligence reached him that Napoleon had actually left Elba,
   on that enterprise in which he staked everything upon
   regaining the imperial throne of France. It came to him direct
   from Napoleon. … He foresaw that the armies of the allied
   powers would be engaged in a gigantic struggle with the
   efforts which Napoleon would be sure to make. Under such
   circumstances, he fancied Italy an easy conquest; once master
   of this he became a power with whom, in the conflict of
   nations, any of the contending parties could only be too happy
   to treat. He determined to place himself at the head of
   Italian nationality, and strike one daring blow for the
   chieftainship of the nation. … His ministers, his friends,
   the French generals, even his queen, Napoleon's sister,
   dissuaded him from such a course. … But with an obstinacy by
   which the vacillating appear sometimes to attempt to atone for
   habitual indecision, he persevered in spite of all advice. …
   He issued a proclamation and ordered his troops to cross the
   Papal frontier. … The Pope appointed a regency and retired,
   accompanied by most of the cardinals, to Florence. … On the
   30th of March his [Murat's] troops attacked the Austrian
   forces at Cesena. The Germans were driven, without offering
   much resistance, from the town. On the evening of that day he
   issued from Rimini his proclamation to the Italian people,
   which was against Austria a declaration of war. … A
   declaration of war on the part of Austria immediately
   followed. … The whole of the Italian army of Austria was
   ordered at once to march upon Naples; and a treaty was
   concluded with Ferdinand, by which Austria engaged to use all
   her endeavours to recover for him his Neapolitan dominions.
   … The army which Murat led northward, instead of numbering
   80,000 as he represented in his proclamation, certainly never
   exceeded 34,000. … Nearly 60,000 Austrians defended the
   banks of the Po. … On the 10th of April, the troops of
   Murat, under the command of General Pepe, were driven back by
   the Austrians, who now in their turn advanced. … A retreat
   to the frontiers of Naples was unanimously resolved on. This
   retreat was one that had all the disasters without any of the
   redeeming glories of war. … At last, as they approached the
   confines of the Neapolitan kingdom, an engagement which took
   place between Macerata and Tolentino, on the 4th of May, ended
   in a total and ignominious rout. … At Macerata most of the
   troops broke up into a disorganised rabble, and with
   difficulty Murat led to Capua a small remnant of an army, that
   could hardly be said to be defeated, because they were worsted
   without anything that deserves to be called a fight.
{1857}
   From Capua, on the 12th of May, the king sent to Naples a
   proclamation granting a free constitution. To conceal the fact
   that this was wrung from him only in distress, he resorted to
   the miserable subterfuge of ante-dating it from Rimini, on the
   30th of March." On the evening of the 18th of May, Murat
   entered Naples quietly on foot, and had his last interview
   with his queen and children. A British squadron was already in
   the harbor. The next night he slipped away to the island of
   Ischia, and thence to Frejus, while Queen Caroline remained to
   discharge the last duties of sovereignty. On the 20th Naples
   was surrendered to the Austrians, and the ex-queen took refuge
   on an English vessel to escape from a threatening mob of the
   lazzaroni. She was conveyed to Trieste, where the Austrian
   emperor had offered her an asylum. The restored Bourbon king,
   Ferdinand, made his entry into the capital on the 17th of
   June. Meantime, Murat, in France, had offered his services to
   Napoleon and they had been declined. After Waterloo, he
   escaped to Corsica, whence, in the following October, he made
   a foolhardy attempt to recover his kingdom, landing with a few
   followers at Pizzo, on the Neapolitan coast, expecting a
   rising of the people to welcome his return. But the rising
   that occurred was hostile instead of friendly. The party was
   quickly overpowered, Murat taken prisoner and delivered to
   Ferdinand's officers. He was summarily tried by court martial
   and shot, October 13, 1815.

      _I. Butt,
      History of Italy,
      volume 2, chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of Naples,
      book 7, chapter 5,
      and book 8, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Revolutionary insurrections in Naples and Sicily.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   The revolt crushed by Austrian troops.
   Abortive insurrection in Piedmont.
   Its end at Novara.
   Abdication of Victor Emmanuel I.
   Accession of Charles Felix.

   "In the last days of February, 1820, a revolution broke out in
   Spain. The object of its leaders was to restore the
   Constitution of 1812, which had been suppressed on the return
   of the Bourbons to the throne. … The Revolution proved
   successful, and for a short time the Spaniards obtained
   possession of a democratic Constitution. Their success stirred
   up the ardour of the Liberal party in the kingdom of the two
   Sicilies, and before many weeks were over a revolutionary
   movement occurred at Naples. The insurrection originated with
   the army under the command of General Pepé, and it is worthy
   of note that the movement was not directed against the
   reigning dynasty, and was not, even nominally, associated with
   any demand for national unity. All the insurgents asked for
   was the establishment of a Constitution similar to that then
   existing in Spain. After a very brief and feeble resistance,
   the King yielded to the demands of the military conspirators,
   who were strongly supported by popular feeling. On the 1st of
   October, a Parliament of the Neapolitan kingdom was opened by
   His Majesty Francis the First, who then and there took a
   solemn oath to observe the Constitution, and even went out of
   his way to profess his profound attachment for the principles
   on which the new Government was based. General Pepé thereupon
   resigned the Dictatorship he had assumed, and constitutional
   liberty was deemed to have been finally established in
   Southern Italy by a bloodless revolution. The rising on the
   mainland was followed after a brief interval by a popular
   insurrection in Sicily. The main object, however, of the
   Sicilian Constitutionalists was to bring about a legislative
   separation between the island and the kingdom of Naples
   proper. … The Sicilian insurrection afforded Francis I. the
   pretext he had looked for, from the commencement, for
   overthrowing the Constitution to which he had personally
   plighted his faith. The Allied Sovereigns took alarm at the
   outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Sicily, and a Congress
   of the Great Powers was convoked at Laibach [see VERONA, THE
   CONGRESS OF] to consider what steps required to be taken for
   the protection of social order in the kingdom of Naples. …
   By the Neapolitan Constitution the Sovereign was not at
   liberty to leave the kingdom without the consent of the
   Parliament. This consent was only given, after much
   hesitation, in reliance upon the reiterated assurances of the
   King, both publicly and privately, that his one object in
   attending the Congress was to avert, if possible, a foreign
   intervention. His Majesty also pledged himself most solemnly
   not to sanction any change in the Constitution to which he had
   sworn allegiance, and … he promised further that he would
   not be a party to any reprisals being inflicted upon his
   subjects for the part they might have taken in the
   establishment of Constitutional liberty. As soon, however, as
   Francis the First had arrived at Laibach, he yielded without a
   protest to the alleged necessity for a foreign occupation of
   his kingdom, with the avowed object of putting down the
   Constitution. Without any delay being given, the Austrian
   regiments crossed the frontier, preceded by a manifesto from
   the King, calling upon his faithful subjects to receive the
   army of occupation not as enemies, but as friends. … The
   national troops, under General Pepé, were defeated with ease
   by the Austrians, who in the course of a few weeks effected,
   almost without opposition, the military occupation of the
   whole kingdom [February-March, 1821]. Forthwith reprisals
   commenced in grim earnest. On the plea that the resistance
   offered by the Constitutionalists to the invading army
   constituted an act of high treason, the King declared himself
   absolved from all promises he had given previously to his
   departure. A reign of terror was set on foot. … Signor Botta
   thus sums up the net result of the punishments inflicted after
   the return of the King in the Neapolitan provinces alone.
   'About a thousand persons were condemned to death, imprisoned,
   or exiled. Infinitely greater was the number of officers and
   officials who were deprived of their posts by the
   Commissioners of Investigation.' … The establishment of
   Constitutional Government in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies,
   and the resolution adopted at the instigation of Austria, by
   the Congress of Laibach, to suppress the Neapolitan
   Constitution by armed force, produced a profound effect
   throughout Italy, and especially in Sardinia. The fact that
   internal reforms were incompatible with the ascendency of
   Austria in the Peninsula was brought home to the popular mind,
   and, for the first time in the history of Italy, the desire
   for civil liberty became identified with the national aversion
   to foreign rule.
{1858}
   In Piedmont there was a powerful Constitutional party,
   composed chiefly of professional men, and a strong military
   caste, aristocratic by birth and conviction, but opposed on
   national grounds to the domination of Austria over Italy.
   These two parties coalesced for a time upon the common
   platform of Constitutional Reform and war with Austria; and
   the result was the abortive rising of 1821. The insurrection,
   however, though directed against the established Government,
   had about it nothing of an anti-dynastic, or even of a
   revolutionary character. On the contrary, the leaders of the
   revolt professed, and probably with sincerity, that they were
   carrying out the true wishes of their Sovereign. Their theory
   was, that Victor Emmanuel I. was only compelled to adhere to
   the Holy Alliance by considerations of foreign policy, and
   that, if his hands were forced, he would welcome any
   opportunity of severing himself from all complicity with
   Austria. Acting on this belief, they determined to proclaim
   the Constitution by a sort of coup d' état, and then, after
   having declared war on Austria, to invade Lombardy, and thus
   create a diversion in favour of the Neapolitans. It is certain
   that Victor Emmanuel I. gave no sanction to, and was not even
   cognisant of, this mad enterprise. … The troubles and
   calamities of his early life had exhausted his energy; and his
   one desire was to live at peace at home and abroad. On the
   other hand, it is certain that Charles Albert [prince of
   Savoy-Carignan, heir presumptive to the throne of Sardinia]
   was in communication with the leaders of the insurrection,
   though how far he was privy to their actual designs has never
   yet been clearly ascertained. The insurrection broke out just
   about the time when the Austrian troops were approaching the
   Neapolitan frontiers. … The insurrection gained head
   rapidly, and the example of Alexandria was followed by the
   garrison of Turin. Pressure was brought to bear upon Victor
   Emmanuel I., and he was led to believe that the only means of
   averting civil war was to grant the Constitution. The
   pressure, however, overshot its mark. On the one hand, the
   King felt that he could not possibly withstand the demand for
   a Constitution at the cost of having to order the regiments
   which had remained loyal to fire upon the insurgents. On the
   other hand, he did not feel justified in granting the
   Constitution without the sanction of his brother and
   [immediate] heir. In order, therefore, to escape from this
   dilemma, his Majesty abdicated suddenly in favour of Charles
   Felix [his brother]. As, however, the new Sovereign happened
   to be residing at Modena, at the Court of his brother-in-law,
   the Prince of Savoy-Carignan was appointed Regent until such
   time as Charles Felix could return to the capital. Immediately
   upon his abdication, Victor Emmanuel quitted Turin, and
   Charles Albert was left in supreme authority as Regent of the
   State. Within twelve hours of his accession to power, the
   Regent proclaimed the Spanish Constitution as the fundamental
   law of Piedmont. … The probability is … that Charles
   Albert, or rather his advisers, were anxious to tie the hands
   of the new Sovereign. They calculated that Charles Felix, who
   was no longer young, and who was known to be bitterly hostile
   to all Liberal theories of Government, would abdicate sooner
   than accept the Crown of a Constitutional kingdom. This
   calculation proved erroneous. … As soon as his Majesty
   learned the news of what had occurred in his absence, he
   issued a manifesto [March, 1821], declaring all the reforms
   granted under the Regency to be null and void, describing the
   authors of the Constitution as rebels, and avowing his
   intention, in the case of necessity, of calling upon the
   Allied Powers to assist him in restoring the legitimate
   authority of the Crown. Meanwhile, he refused to accept the
   throne till the restoration of order had given Victor Emmanuel
   full freedom to reconsider the propriety of abdication. This
   manifesto was followed by the immediate advance of an Austrian
   corps d'armée to the frontier stream of the Ticino, as well as
   by the announcement that the Russian Government had ordered an
   army of 100,000 men to set out on their march towards Italy,
   with the avowed object of restoring order in the Peninsula.
   The population of Piedmont recognised at once, with their
   practical good sense, that any effective resistance was out of
   the question. … The courage of the insurgents gave way in
   view of the obstacles which they had to encounter, and the
   last blow was dealt to their cause by the sudden defection of
   the Prince Regent. … Unable either to face his coadjutors in
   the Constitutional pronunciamento, or to assume the
   responsibility of an open conflict with the legitimate
   Sovereign, the Regent left Turin secretly [March 21, 1821],
   without giving any notice of his intended departure, and, on
   arriving at Novara, formally resigned his short-lived power.
   The leaders, however, of the insurrection had committed
   themselves too deeply to follow the example of the Regent. A
   Provisional Government was established at Turin, and it was
   determined to march upon Novara, in the hope that the troops
   collected there would fraternise with the insurgents. As soon
   as it was known that the insurgents were advancing in force
   from Turin, the Austrians, under General Bübner, crossed the
   Ticino, and effected a junction with the Royal troops. When
   the insurgents reached Novara, they suddenly found themselves
   confronted, not by their own fellow-countrymen, but by an
   Austrian army. A panic ensued, and the insurrectionary force
   suffered a disastrous, though, fortunately, a comparatively
   bloodless, defeat. After this disaster the insurrection was
   virtually at an end. … The Austrians, with the consent of
   Charles Felix, occupied the principal fortresses of Piedmont.
   The old order of things was restored, and, upon Victor
   Emmanuel's formal refusal to withdraw his abdication, Charles
   Felix assumed the title of King of Sardinia. As soon as
   military resistance had ceased, the insurrection was put down
   with a strong hand."

      _E. Dicey,
      Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 3-4._

   "Henceforth the issue could not be misunderstood. The conflict
   was not simply between the Neapolitans and their Bourbon king,
   or between the Piedmontese and Charles Felix, but between
   Italian Liberalism and European Absolutism. Santarosa and Pepé
   cried out in their disappointment that the just cause would
   have won had their timid colleagues been more daring, had
   promises but been kept; we, however, see clearly that though
   the struggle might have been prolonged, the result would have
   been unchanged. Piedmont and Naples, had each of their
   citizens been a hero, could not have overcome the Holy
   Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE], which was their real antagonist.
{1859}
   The revolutionists had not directly attacked the Holy
   Alliance; they had not thrown down the gauntlet to Austria;
   they had simply insisted that they had a right to
   constitutional government; and Austria, more keen-witted than
   they, had seen that to suffer a constitution at Naples or
   Turin would be to acknowledge the injustice of those
   principles by which the Holy Alliance had decreed that Europe
   should be repressed to the end of time. So when the Carbonari
   aimed at Ferdinand they struck Austria, and Austria struck
   back a deadly blow. … But Austria and the Reactionists were
   not content with simple victory; treating the revolution as a
   crime, they at once proceeded to take vengeance. …
   Ferdinand, the perjured Neapolitan king, tarried behind in
   Florence, whilst the Austrians went down into his kingdom. …
   But as soon as Ferdinand was assured that the Austrian
   regiments were masters of Naples, he sent for that Prince of
   Canosa whom he had been forced unwillingly to dismiss on
   account of his outrageous cruelty five years before, and
   deputed to him the task of restoring genuine Bourbon tyranny
   in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. A better agent of
   vindictive wrath than Canosa could not have been found; he was
   troubled by no humane compunctions, nor by doubts as to the
   justice of his fierce measures; to him, as to Torquemada,
   persecution was a compound of duty and pleasure. … The right
   of assembling, no matter for what purpose, being denied, the
   universities, schools, and lyceums had to close; proscription
   lists were hurriedly drawn up, and they contained not only the
   names of those who had been prominent in the recent rising,
   but also of all who had incurred suspicion for any political
   acts as far back as 1793. … Houses were searched without
   warrant; seals were broken open; some of the revelations of
   the confessional were not sacred. The church-bells tolled
   incessantly for victims led to execution. To strike deeper
   terror, Canosa revived the barbarous torture of scourging in
   public. … How many victims actually suffered during this
   reign of terror we cannot tell. Canosa's list of the
   proscribed had, it is said, more than four thousand names. The
   prisons were choked with persons begging for trial; the
   galleys of Pantelleria, Procida, and the Ponza Islands swarmed
   with victims condemned for life; the scaffolds, erected in the
   public squares of the chief towns, were daily occupied. … At
   length, when his deputies had terrorized the country into
   apparent submission, and when the Austrian regiments made it
   safe for him to travel, Ferdinand quitted Florence and
   returned to Naples. … In Sicily the revolution smouldered
   and spluttered for years, in spite of remorseless efforts to
   stamp it out; on the mainland, robberies and brigandage, and
   outbreaks now political and now criminal, proved how delusive
   was a security based on oppression and lies. Amid these
   conditions Ferdinand passed the later years of his infamous
   reign. … In Piedmont the retaliation was as effectual as in
   Naples, but less blood was shed there. Della Torre took
   command of the kingdom in the name of Charles Felix. …
   Seventy-three officers were condemned to death, one hundred
   and five to the galleys; but as nearly all of them had
   escaped, they were hanged in effigy; only two, Lieutenant
   Lanari and Captain Garelli, were executed. The property of the
   condemned was sequestrated, their families were tormented, and
   the commission, not content with sentencing those who had
   taken an active part in the revolution, cashiered two hundred
   and twenty-one officers who, while holding aloof from
   Santarosa, had refused to join Della Torre at Novara and fight
   against their countrymen. … The King … had soon reason to
   learn the truth of a former epigram of his, 'Austria is a
   bird-lime which you cannot wash off your fingers when you have
   once touched it'; for Austria soon showed that her motive in
   bolstering falling monarchs on their shaky thrones was not
   simply philanthropic nor disinterested. General Bubna, on
   taking possession of Alessandria, sent the keys of that
   fortress to Emperor Francis, in order, he said,—and we wonder
   whether there was no sarcasm in his voice,—in order to give
   Charles Felix 'the pleasure of receiving them back from the
   Emperor's hand.' 'Although I found this a very poor joke,'
   wrote Charles Felix to his brother, 'I dissembled.' How,
   indeed, could he do otherwise? … Charles Felix had in truth
   become but the vassal of the hereditary enemy of his line, and
   that not by conquest, but by his own invitation."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Colletta,
      History of Naples,
      books 9-10 (volume 2)._

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 6._

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      History of Modern Italy,
      chapters 2-3, and 6._

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Revolt in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States,
   suppressed by Austrian troops.

   "The Revolution of 1830 [in France] made a natural impression
   in a country which had many evils to complain of and which had
   so lately been connected with France. The duke of Modena,
   Francis IV., sought to make use of the liberal movement to
   extend his rule over northern Italy. But at the last moment he
   was terrified by threats from Vienna, turned against his
   fellow-conspirators, and imprisoned them (February 3, 1831).
   The people, however, were so alienated by his treachery that
   he fled with his prisoners to seek safety in Austrian
   territory. A provisional government was formed, and Modena was
   declared a free state. Meanwhile the election of a new pope,
   Gregory XVI., gave occasion for a rising in the papal states.
   Bologna took the lead in throwing off its allegiance to Rome,
   and in a few weeks its example was followed by the whole of
   Romagna, Umbria, and the Marches. The two sons of Louis
   Bonaparte, the late king of Holland, hastened to join the
   insurgents, but the elder died at Forli (17 March), and thus
   an eventful career was opened to the younger brother, the
   future Napoleon III. Parma revolted against Maria Louisa, who
   followed the example of the duke of Modena and fled to
   Austria. The success of the movement, however, was very
   short-lived. Austrian troops marched to the assistance of the
   papacy, the rebellion was put down by force, and the exiled
   rulers were restored. Louis Philippe, on whom the insurgents
   had relied, had no sympathy with a movement in which members
   of the Bonaparte family were engaged. But a temporary revival
   of the insurrection brought the Austrians back to Romagna, and
   a great outcry was raised in France against the king.
{1860}
   To satisfy public opinion, Louis Philippe sent a French force
   to seize Ancona (February 22, 1832), but it was a very
   harmless demonstration, and had been explained beforehand to
   the papal government. In Naples and Sardinia no disturbances
   took place. Ferdinand II. succeeded his father Francis I. on
   the Neapolitan throne in 1830, and satisfied the people by
   introducing a more moderate system of government. Charles
   Albert became king of Sardinia on the death of Charles Felix
   (27 April, 1831), and found himself in a difficult position
   between Austria, which had good reason to mistrust him, and
   the liberal party, which he had betrayed."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 25._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. G. Farini,
      The Roman State, 1815-1850,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.
   The Mission of Mazzini, the Revolutionist.
   Young Italy.

   "The Revolution of 1830, ineffectual as it seemed to its
   promoters, was yet most significant. It failed in Italy and
   Poland, in Spain and Portugal; it created a mongrel monarchy,
   neither Absolute nor Constitutional, in France; only in
   Belgium did it attain its immediate purpose. Nevertheless, if
   we look beneath the surface, we see that it was one of those
   epoch-marking events of which we can say, 'Things cannot be
   again what until just now they were.' … The late risings in
   the Duchies and Legations had brought no comfort to the
   conspirators, but had taught them, on the contrary, how
   ineffectual, how hopeless was the method of the secret
   societies. After more than fifteen years they had not gained
   an inch; they had only learned that their rulers would concede
   nothing, and that Austria, their great adversary, had staked
   her existence on maintaining thraldom in Italy. Innumerable
   small outbursts and three revolutions had ended in the death
   of hundreds and in the imprisonment or proscription of
   thousands of victims. … Just when conspiracy, through
   repeated failures, was thus discredited, there arose a leader
   so strong and unselfish, so magnetic and patient and zealous,
   that by him, if by anyone, conspiracy might be guided to
   victory. This leader, the Great Conspirator, was Joseph
   Mazzini, one of the half dozen supreme influences in European
   politics during the nineteenth century, whose career will
   interest posterity as long as it is concerned at all in our
   epoch of transition. For just as Metternich was the High
   Priest of the Old Regime, so Mazzini was the Prophet of a
   Social Order, more just, more free, more spiritual than any
   the world has known. He was an Idealist who would hold no
   parley with temporizers, an enthusiast whom half-concessions
   could not beguile: and so he came to be decried as a fanatic
   or a visionary. … Mazzini joined the Carbonari, not without
   suspecting that, under their complex symbolism and
   hierarchical mysteries they concealed a fatal lack of harmony,
   decision, and faith. … As he became better acquainted with
   Carbonarism, his conviction grew stronger that no permanent
   good could be achieved by it. … The open propaganda of his
   Republican and Unitarian doctrines was of course impossible;
   it must be carried on by a secret organization. But he was
   disgusted with the existing secret societies: they lacked
   harmony, they lacked faith, they had no distinct purpose;
   their Masonic mummeries were childish and farcical. …
   Therefore, Mazzini would have none of them; he would organize
   a new secret society, and call it 'Young Italy,' whose
   principles should be plainly understood by every one of its
   members. It was to be composed of men under forty, in order to
   secure the most energetic and disinterested members, and to
   avoid the influence of older men, who, trained by the past
   generation, were not in touch with the aspirations and needs
   of the new. It was to awaken the People, the bone and sinew of
   the nation; whereas the earlier sects had relied too much on
   the upper and middle classes, whose traditions and interests
   were either too aristocratic or too commercial. Roman
   Catholicism had ceased to be spiritual; it no longer purified
   and uplifted the hearts of the Italians. … Young Italy
   aimed, therefore, to substitute for the mediæval dogmas and
   patent idolatries of Rome a religion based on Reason, and so
   simple as to be within the comprehension of the humblest
   peasant. … The doctrines of the new sect spread, but since
   secret societies give the census-taker no account of their
   membership, we cannot cite figures to illustrate the growth of
   Young Italy. Contrary to Mazzini's expectations, it was
   recruited, not so much from the People, as from the Middle
   Class, the professional men, and the tradesmen." In 1831
   Mazzini was forced into exile, at Marseilles, from which city
   he planned an invasion of Savoy. The project was discovered,
   and the Sardinian government revenged itself cruelly upon the
   patriots within its reach. "In a few weeks, eleven alleged
   conspirators had been executed, many more had been sentenced
   to the galleys, and others, who had escaped; were condemned in
   contumacy. Among the men who fled into exile at this time were
   … Vincent Gioberti and Joseph Garibaldi. … To an
   enthusiast less determined than Mazzini, this calamity would
   have been a check; to him, however, it was a spur. Instead of
   abandoning the expedition against Savoy, he worked with might
   and main to hurry it on. … One column, in which were fifty
   Italians and twice as many Poles, … was to enter Savoy by
   way of Annemasse. A second column had orders to push on from
   Nyon; a third, starting from Lyons, was to march towards
   Chambéry. Mazzini, with a musket on his shoulder, accompanied
   the first party. To his surprise, the peasants showed no
   enthusiasm when the tricolor flag was unfurled and the
   invaders shouted 'God and People! Liberty and the Republic!'
   before them. At length some carabineers and a platoon of
   troops appeared. A few shots were fired. Mazzini fainted; his
   comrades dispersed across the Swiss border, taking him with
   them. … His enemies attributed his fainting to cowardice; he
   himself explained it as the result of many nights of
   sleeplessness, of great fatigue, fever and cold. … To all
   but the few concerned in it, this first venture of Young Italy
   seemed a farce, the disproportion between its aim and its
   achievement was so enormous, and Mazzini's personal collapse
   was so ignominious. Nevertheless, Italian conspiracy had now
   and henceforth that head for lack of which it had so long
   floundered amid vague and contradictory purposes. The young
   Idealist had been beaten in his first encounter with obdurate
   Reality, but he was not discouraged. … Now began in earnest
   that 'apostolate' of his, which he laid down only at his
   death.
{1861}
   Young Italy was established beyond the chance of being
   destroyed by an abortive expedition; Young Poland, Young
   Hungary, Young Europe itself, sprang up after the Mazzinian
   pattern; the Liberals and revolutionists of the Continent felt
   that their cause was international, and in their affliction
   they fraternized. No one could draw so fair and reasonable a
   Utopia for them as Mazzini drew; no one could so fire them
   with a sense of duty, with hope, with energy. He became the
   mainspring of the whole machine—truly an infernal machine to
   the autocrats—of European conspiracy. The redemption of Italy
   was always his nearest aim, but his generous principle reached
   out over other nations, for in the world that he prophesied
   every people must be free. Proscribed in Piedmont, expelled
   from Switzerland, denied lodging in France, he took refuge in
   London, there to direct, amid poverty and heartache, the whole
   vast scheme of plots. His bread he earned by writing critical
   and literary essays for the English reviews,—he quickly
   mastered the English language so as to use it with remarkable
   vigor,—and all his leisure he devoted to the preparation of
   political tracts, and to correspondence with numberless
   confederates. … He was the consulting physician for all the
   revolutionary practitioners of Europe. Those who were not his
   partisans disparaged his influence, asserting that he was only
   a man of words; but the best proof of his power lies in the
   anxiety he caused monarchs and cabinets, and in the
   precautions they took to guard against him. … Mazzini and
   Metternich! For nearly twenty years they were the antipodes of
   European politics. One in his London garret, poor, despised,
   yet indomitable and sleepless, sending his influence like an
   electric current through all barriers to revivify the heart of
   Italy and of Liberal Europe; the other in his Vienna palace,
   haughty, famous, equally alert and cunning, … shedding over
   Italy and over Europe his upas-doctrines of torpor and decay!"

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Garrison,
      Joseph Mazzini,
      chapters 2-5._

      _J. Mazzini,
      Collected Works,
      volume 1._

ITALY: A. D. 1848.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection and revolution throughout the peninsula.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Triumph of King "Bomba" in Naples and Sicily.
   Disastrous war of Sardinia with Austria.
   Lombardy and Venice enslaved anew.

   "The revolution of 1831, which affected the States of the
   Church, Modena, and Parma, had been suppressed, like the still
   earlier rebellions in Naples and Piedmont, by Austrian
   intervention. … Hence, all the hatred of the Italians was
   directed against foreign rule, as the only obstacle to the
   freedom and unity of the peninsula. … The secret societies,
   and the exiles in communication with them—especially Joseph
   Mazzini, who issued his commands from London—took care that
   the national spirit should not be buried beneath material
   interests, but should remain ever wakeful. Singularly, the
   first encouragement came from" Rome. "Pope Gregory XVI., …
   had died June 1st, 1846, and been succeeded by the
   fifty-four-year-old Cardinal Count Mastai Ferretti, who took
   the name of Pius IX. If the pious world which visited him was
   charmed by the amiability and clemency of its new head, the
   cardinals were dismayed at the reforms which this new head
   would fain introduce in the States of the Church and in all
   Italy. He published an amnesty for all political offences;
   permitted the exiles to return with impunity; allowed the
   Press freer scope; threw open the highest civil offices to
   laymen; summoned from the notables of the provinces a council
   of state, which was to propose reforms; bestowed a liberal
   municipal constitution on the city of Rome; and endeavored to
   bring about an Italian confederation. … After the French
   revolution of 1848 he granted a constitution. There was a
   first chamber, to be named by the Pope, and a second chamber,
   to be elected by the people, while the irresponsible college
   of cardinals formed a sort of privy council. A new era
   appeared to be dawning. The old-world capital, Rome, once the
   mistress of the nations, still the mistress of all Roman
   Catholic hearts, was to become the central point of Italy. …
   But when the flames of war broke out in the north [see below],
   and the fate of Italy was about to be decided between Sardinia
   and Austria on the old battle fields of Lombardy, the Romans
   demanded from the Pope a declaration of war against Austria,
   and the despatch of Roman troops to join Charles Albert's
   army. Pius rejected their demands as unsuited to his papal
   office, and so broke with the men of the extreme party. … In
   this time of agitation Pius thought that in Count Pellegrino
   Rossi, of Carrara, … he had found the right man to carry out
   a policy of moderate liberalism, and on the 17th of September,
   1848, he set him at the head of a new ministry. The anarchists
   … could not forgive Rossi for grasping the reins with a firm
   hand." On the 15th of November, as he alighted from his
   carriage at the door of the Chambers, he was stabbed in the
   neck by an assassin, and died on the spot. He was about, when
   murdered, to open the Chambers with a speech, in which he
   intended "to promise abolition of the rule of the cardinals
   and introduction of a lay government, and to insist upon
   Italy's independence and unity. … The next day an armed
   crowd appeared before the Quirinal and attacked the guard,
   which consisted of Swiss mercenaries, some of the bullets
   flying into the Pope's antechamber. He had to accept a radical
   ministry and dismiss the Swiss troops. … Pius fled in
   disguise from Rome to Gaeta, November 24th, and sought shelter
   with the King of Naples. Mazzini and his party had free scope.
   A constitutional convention was summoned, which declared the
   temporal power of the Pope abolished (February 5th, 1849), and
   Rome a republic. To them attached itself Tuscany. Grand-duke
   Leopold II. had granted a constitution, February 17th, 1848,
   but nevertheless the republican-minded ministry of Guerrazzi
   compelled him to join the Pope at Gaeta, February 21st, 1849.
   The republic was then proclaimed in Tuscany and union with
   Rome resolved upon." But Louis Napoleon, President of the
   French republic, intervened. "Marshal Oudinot was despatched
   with 8,000 men. He landed in Civita Vecchia, April 26th, 1849,
   and appeared before the walls of Rome on the 30th, expecting
   to take the city without any trouble. But … after a fight of
   several hours, he had to retreat to Civita Vecchia with a loss
   of 700 men.
{1862}
   A few days later the Neapolitan army, which was to attack the
   rebels from the south, was defeated at Velletri; and the
   Spanish troops, the third in the league against the red
   republic, prudently avoided a battle. But Oudinot received
   considerable re-enforcements, and on June 3d he advanced
   against Rome for the second time, with 35,000 men, while the
   force in the city consisted of about 19,000, mostly volunteers
   and national guards. In spite of the bravery of Garibaldi and
   the volunteers, into whom he breathed his spirit, Rome had to
   capitulate, after a long and bloody struggle, owing to the
   superiority of the French artillery. On the 4th of July
   Oudinot entered the silent capital. Garibaldi, Mazzini, and
   their followers fled. … Pius, for whose nerves the Roman
   atmosphere was still too strong, did not return until the 4th
   of April, 1850. His ardor for reform was cooled. … In the
   Legations they had to protect themselves by Austrian bayonets,
   and in Rome and Civita Vecchia by French. This lasted in the
   Legations until 1859, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia until
   1866 and 1870. Simultaneously with Rome the south of Italy had
   entered into the movement so characteristic of the year 1848.
   The scenes of 1820 and 1821 were repeated." The Sicilians
   again demanded independence; expelled the Neapolitan garrison
   from Palermo; refused to accept a constitution proffered by
   King Ferdinand II., which created a united parliament for
   Naples and Sicily; voted in a Sicilian parliament the
   perpetual exclusion of the Bourbon dynasty from the throne,
   and offered the crown of Sicily to a son of the king of
   Sardinia, who declined the gift. In Naples, Ferdinand yielded
   at first to the storm, and sent, under compulsion, a force of
   13,000 Neapolitan troops, commanded by the old revolutionist,
   General Pepé, to join the Sardinians against Austria. This was
   in April, 1848. A month later he crushed the revolution with
   his Swiss mercenaries, recalled his army from northern Italy,
   and was master, again, in his capital and his peninsular
   kingdom. The following summer he landed 8,000 troops in
   Sicily; his army bombarded and stormed Messina in September;
   defeated the insurgents at the foot of Mount Etna; took
   Catania by storm in April, 1849, and entered Palermo, after a
   short bombardment, on the 17th of May, having gained for its
   master the nickname of "King Bomba." "He ordered a general
   disarmament, and established an oppressive military rule over
   the whole island; and there was no more talk of parliament and
   constitution. All these struggles in central and southern
   Italy stood in close connection with the events of 1848 and
   1849 in upper Italy. … In the north the struggle was to
   shake off the Austrian yoke. … During the month of January,
   1848, there was constant friction between the citizens and the
   military in Milan and the university cities of Pavia and
   Padua. … March 18th, Milan rose. All classes took part in
   the fight; and the eighty-two-year-old field-marshal Count
   Joseph Radetzky … was obliged, after a street fight of two
   days, to draw his troops out of the city, call up as quickly
   as possible the garrisons of the neighboring cities, and take
   up his position in the famous Quadrilateral, between
   Peschiera, Verona, Legnano, and Mantua. March 22d, Venice,
   where Count Zichy commanded, was lost for the Austrians," who
   yielded without resistance, releasing their political
   prisoners, one of whom, the celebrated Daniel Manin, a
   Venetian lawyer, took his place at the head of a provisional
   government. "Other cities followed the lead of Venice. The
   little duchies of Modena and Parma could hold out no longer;
   Dukes Francis and Charles fled to Austria, and provisional
   governments sprung up behind them. Like Naples, the duchies
   and Tuscany also sent their troops across the Po to help the
   Sardinians in the decisive struggle. The hopes of all Italy
   were centred on Sardinia and its king. … Charles Albert,
   called to the aid of Lombardy, entered Milan to win for
   himself the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom and the hegemony of
   Italy. He presented himself as the liberator of the peninsula,
   but it was not a part for which he was qualified by his
   antecedents. … He was a brave soldier, but a poor captain.
   … His opponent, Radetzky, was old, but his spirit was still
   young and fresh. … Radetzky received re-enforcements from
   Austria, and on the 6th of May repelled the attack of the
   Sardinian king south-west of Verona [at Santa Lucia]. May
   29th, he carried the intrenchments at Cartatone; but as the
   Sardinians were victorious at Goito and took Peschiera, while
   Garibaldi with his Alpine rangers threatened the Austrian
   rear, he had to desist from further advances, and limit his
   operations to the recapture of Vicenza and the other cities of
   the Venetian main-land. In the mean time the Austrian court,
   chiefly at the instigation of the British embassy, had opened
   negotiations with the Lombards, and offered them their
   independence on condition of their assuming a considerable
   share of the public debt, and concluding a favorable
   commercial treaty with Austria. But, as the Lombards felt sure
   of acquiring their freedom more cheaply, they did not accept
   the proposition. Radetzky was now in a position to assume an
   active offensive. He won a brilliant victory at Custozza, July
   25th. The Sardinians attempted to make a stand at Goito and
   again at Volta, but were driven back, and Radetzky advanced on
   Milan. Charles Albert had to evacuate the city," and on the
   9th of August he concluded an armistice, withdrawing his
   troops from Lombardy and the duchies. But in the following
   March (1849) he was persuaded to renew the war, and he placed
   his army under the command of the Polish general Chrzanowski.
   It was the intention of the Sardinians to advance again into
   Lombardy, but they had no opportunity. "Radetzky crossed the
   Ticino, and in a four days' campaign on Sardinian soil
   defeated the foe so completely—March 21st at Mortara, and
   March 23d at Novara—that there could be no more thought of a
   renewal of the struggle. … Charles Albert, who had vainly
   sought death upon the battle-field, was weary of his throne
   and his life. In the night of March 23d, at Novara, he laid
   down the crown and declared his eldest son king of Sardinia,
   under the title of Victor Emmanuel II. He hoped that the
   latter would obtain a more favorable peace from the Austrians.
   … Then, saying farewell to his wife by letter, attended by
   but two servants, he travelled through France and Spain to
   Portugal. He died at Oporto, July 26th, 1849, of repeated
   strokes of apoplexy." After long negotiations, the new king
   concluded a treaty of peace with Austria on the 6th of August.
   "Sardinia retained its boundaries intact, and paid 75,000,000
   lire as indemnity. The false report of a Sardinian victory at
   Novara had caused the population of Brescia to fall upon the
   Austrian garrison and drive them into the citadel.
{1863}
   General Haynau hastened thither with 4,000 men well provided
   with artillery. The city was bombarded, and on the 1st of
   April it was reoccupied, after a fearful street fight, in
   which even women took part; but Haynau stained his name by
   inhuman cruelties, especially toward the gentler sex. Venice
   was not able to hold out much longer. It had at first attached
   itself to Sardinia, but after the defeat of the Sardinians the
   republic was proclaimed. Without the city, in Haynau's camp,
   swamp fever raged; within, hunger and cholera. On the news of
   the capitulation of Hungary, August 22d, it surrendered, and
   the heads of the revolution, Manin and Pepe, went into exile.
   All Italy was again brought under its old masters."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Recent Times,
      section 16._

   The siege of Venice, "reckoning from April 2, when the
   Assembly voted to resist at any cost, lasted 146 days; but the
   blockade by land began on June 18, 1848, when the Austrians
   first occupied Mestre. During the twenty-one weeks of actual
   siege, 900 Venetian troops were killed, and probably 7,000 or
   8,000 were at different times on the sick-list. Of the
   Austrians, 1,200 were killed in engagements, 8,000 succumbed
   to fevers and cholera, and as many more were in the hospitals:
   80,000 projectiles were fired from the Venetian batteries;
   from the Austrian, more than 120,000. During the seventeen
   months of her independence, Venice raised sixty million
   francs, exclusive of patriotic donations in plate and
   chattels. When Gorzkowsky came to examine the accounts of the
   defunct government he exclaimed, 'I did not believe that such
   Republican dogs were such honest men.' With the fate of Venice
   was quenched the last of the fires of liberty which the
   Revolution had kindled throughout Europe in 1848. Her people,
   whom the world had come to look down upon as degenerate,—mere
   trinket-makers and gondoliers,—had proved themselves second
   to none in heroism, superior to all in stability. At Venice,
   from first to last, we have had to record no excesses, no
   fickle changes, no slipping down of power from level to level
   till it sank in the mire of anarchy. She had her demagogues
   and her passions, but she would be the slave of neither; and
   in nothing did she show her character more worthily than in
   recognizing Manin and making him her leader. He repaid her
   trust by absolute fidelity. I can discover no public act of
   his to which you can impute any other motive than solicitude
   for her welfare. The common people loved him as a father,
   revered him as a patron saint; the upper classes, the
   soldiers, the politicians, whatever may have been the
   preferences of individuals or the ambition of cliques, felt
   that he was indispensable, and gave him wider and wider
   authority as danger increased. … The little lawyer, with the
   large, careworn face and blue eyes, had redeemed Venice from
   her long shame of decadence and servitude. But Europe would
   not suffer his work to stand; Europe preferred that Austria
   rather than freedom should rule at Venice. At daybreak on
   August 28 a mournful throng of the common people collected
   before Manin's house in Piazza San Paterniano. 'Here is our
   good father, poor dear fellow,' they were heard to say. 'He
   has endured so much for us. May God bless him!' They escorted
   him and his family to the shore, whence he embarked on the
   French ship Pluton, for he was among the forty prominent
   Venetians whom the Austrians condemned to banishment. At six
   o'clock the Pluton weighed anchor and passed through the
   winding channel of the lagune, out into the Adriatic. Long
   before the Austrian banners were hoisted that morning on the
   flagstaffs of St. Mark's, Venice, with her fair towers and
   glittering domes, had vanished forever from her Great
   Defender's sight. Outwardly, the Revolutionary Movement had
   failed; in France it had resulted in a spurious Republic, soon
   to become a tinsel Empire; elsewhere, there was not even a
   make-believe success to hide, if but for a while, the failure.
   In Italy, except in Piedmont, Reaction had full play. Bomba
   filled his Neapolitan and Sicilian prisons with political
   victims, and demonstrated again that the Bourbon government
   was a negation of God. Pius IX., having loitered at Naples
   with his Paragon of Virtue until April, 1850, returned to
   Rome, to be henceforth now the puppet and now the accomplice
   of Cardinal Antonelli in every scheme for oppressing his
   subjects, and for resisting Liberal tendencies. He held his
   temporal sovereignty through the kindness of the Bonapartist
   charlatan in France; it was fated that he should lose it
   forever when that charlatan lost his Empire. In Tuscany,
   Leopold thanked Austria for permitting him to rule over a
   people the intelligent part of which despised him. In Modena,
   the Duke was but an Austrian deputy sheriff. Lombardy and
   Venetia were again the prey of the double-beaked eagle of
   Hapsburg. Only in Piedmont did Constitutionalism and liberty
   survive to become, under an honest king and a wise minister,
   the ark of Italy's redemption."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      The Dawn of Italian Independence,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Gleanings of Past Years,
      volume 4, chapters 1-4._

      _L. C. Farini,
      The Roman State from 1815 to 1850,
      books 2-7 (volumes 1-4)._

      _H. Martin,
      Daniel Manin and Venice in 1848-49._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      period 2 (volumes 1-2)._

      _L. Mariotti,
      Italy in 1848_.

      _E. A. V.,
      Joseph Mazzini,
      chapters 4-5._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      History of the Italian Revolution,
      chapters 6-7._

ITALY: A. D. 1855.
   Sardinia in the alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
   Austro-Italy before Europe in the Congress of Paris.
   Alliance of France with Sardinia.
   War with Austria.
   Emancipation of Lombardy.
   Peace of Villa-franca.

   "The year 1856 brought an armistice between the contending
   powers [in the Crimea—see RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854 to
   1854-1856], followed by the Congress of Paris, which settled
   the terms of peace. At that Congress Count Cavour and the
   Marquis Villamarina represented their country side by side
   with the envoys of the great European States. The Prime
   Minister of Piedmont, while taking his part in the
   re-establishment of the general peace with a skill and tact
   which won him the favour of his brother plenipotentiaries,
   never lost sight of the further object he had in view, namely,
   that of laying before the Congress the condition of Italy. …
   His efforts were rewarded with success.
{1864}
   On the 30th March, 1856, the treaty of peace was signed, and
   on the 8th April Count Walewski called the attention of the
   members of the Congress to the state of Italy. … Count Buol,
   the Austrian plenipotentiary, would not admit that the
   Congress had any right to deal with the Italian question at
   all; he declined courteously, but firmly, to discuss the
   matter. … But although Austria refused to entertain the
   question, the fact remained that the condition of Italy now
   stood condemned, not by revolutionary chiefs, nor by the
   rulers of Piedmont alone, but by the envoys of some of the
   leading powers of Europe speaking officially in the name of
   their respective sovereigns. It was in truth a great
   diplomatic victory for Italy. … No one in Europe was more
   thoroughly convinced than Napoleon III. that the discontent of
   Italy and the plots of a section of Italians had their origin
   in the despotism which annihilated all national life in the
   Peninsula with the single exception of Piedmont. He felt
   keenly, also, how false, was his own position at Rome. …
   France upheld the Pope as a temporal sovereign, but,
   nevertheless, the latter ruled in a manner which pleased
   Austria and which displeased France. … Count Cavour went
   privately to meet the French Emperor at Plombières in July,
   1858. During that interview it was arranged that France should
   ally herself actively with Piedmont against Austria. … The
   first public indication of the attitude taken up by France
   with regard to Austria and Italy was given on the 1st January,
   1859, when Napoleon III. received the diplomatic corps at the
   Tuileries. Addressing Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador,
   the French Emperor said: 'I regret that the relations between
   us are bad; tell your sovereign, however, that my sentiments
   towards him are not changed.' … The ties which united France
   to Piedmont were strengthened by the marriage, in the end of
   January, 1859, of the Princess Clotilde, the eldest daughter
   of Victor Emmanuel, with Prince Napoleon, the first cousin of
   the French Emperor. … An agreement was made by which the
   Emperor Napoleon promised to give armed assistance to Piedmont
   if she were attacked by Austria. The result, in case the
   allies were successful, was to be the formation of a northern
   kingdom of Italy. … Both Austria and Piedmont increased
   their armaments and raised loans in preparation for war. Men
   of all ranks and conditions of life flocked to Turin from the
   other States of Italy to join the Piedmontese army, or enrol
   themselves among the volunteers of Garibaldi, who had hastened
   to offer his services to the king against Austria. …
   Meanwhile, diplomacy made continual efforts to avert war. …
   The idea of a European Congress was started. … Then came the
   proposition of a general disarmament by way of staying the
   warlike preparations, which were taking ever enlarged
   proportions. On the 18th April, 1859, the Cabinet of Turin
   agreed to the principle of disarmament at the special request
   of England and France, on the condition that Piedmont took her
   seat at the Congress. The Cabinet of Vienna had made no reply
   to this proposition. Then suddenly it addressed, on the 23rd
   April, an ultimatum to the Cabinet of Turin demanding the
   instant disarmament of Piedmont, to which a categorical reply
   was asked for within three days. At the expiration of the
   three days Count Cavour, who was delighted at this hasty step
   of his opponent, remitted to Baron Kellerberg, the Austrian
   envoy, a refusal to comply with the request made. War was now
   inevitable. Victor Emmanuel addressed a stirring proclamation
   to his army on the 27th April, and two days afterwards another
   to the people of his own kingdom and to the people of Italy.
   … On the 30th April some French troops arrived at Turin. On
   the 13th May Napoleon III. disembarked at Genoa. … Although
   the Austrian armies proceeded to cross the Ticino and invade
   the Piedmontese territory, they failed to make a decisive
   march on Turin. Had Count Giúlay, the Austrian commander, done
   so without hesitation, he might well have reached the capital
   of Piedmont before the French had arrived in sufficient force
   to enable the little Piedmontese army to arrest the invasion.
   As it was, the opportunity was lost never to occur again. In
   the first engagements at Montebello and Palestro [May 20, 30
   and 31] the advantage rested decidedly with the allies. … On
   the 4th June the French fought the battle of Magenta, which
   ended, though not without a hard struggle, in the defeat of
   the Austrians. On the 8th the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor
   Emmanuel entered Milan, where they were received with a
   welcome as sincere as it was enthusiastic. The rich Lombard
   capital hastened to recognise the king as its sovereign. While
   there he met in person, Garibaldi, who was in command of the
   volunteer corps, whose members had flocked from all parts of
   Italy to carry on under his command the war in the mountainous
   districts of the north against Austria. … The allied troops
   pursued their march onwards towards the River Mincio, upon
   whose banks two of the fortresses of the famous Quadrilateral
   are situated. On the 24th June they encountered the Austrian
   army at Solferino and San Martino. French, Piedmontese, and
   Austrians, fought with courage and determination. Nor was it
   until after ten or eleven hours of hard fighting that the
   allies forced their enemy to retreat and took possession of
   the positions he had occupied in the morning. While victory
   thus crowned the efforts of France and Piedmont in battle,
   events of no little importance were taking place in Italy.
   Ferdinand II. of Naples died on the 22nd May, just after he
   had received the news of the successes of the allies at
   Montebello and Palestro. He was succeeded by his son, Francis
   II. … Count Salmour was at once despatched by the
   Piedmontese Government … with the offer of a full and fair
   alliance between Turin and Naples. The offer was rejected.
   Francis determined to follow his father's example of
   absolutism at home while giving all his influence to Austria.
   Thus it was that the young Neapolitan king sowed, and as he
   sowed so he reaped. Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had in
   April refused the proffered alliance of Piedmont. … Finally
   he left Florence and took refuge in the Austrian camp. A
   provisional Government was formed, which placed the Tuscan
   forces at the disposal of Victor Emmanuel. This change was
   effected in a few hours without bloodshed or violence. The
   Duchess of Parma went away to Switzerland with her young son,
   Duke Robert. Francis Duke of Modena betook himself, with what
   treasures he had time to lay his hands on, to the more
   congenial atmosphere of the head-quarters of the Austrian
   army. … 'The deputations which hastened from Tuscany, Parma,
   and Modena, to offer their allegiance to Victor Emmanuel, were
   received without difficulty. It was agreed that their complete
   annexation should be deferred until after the conclusion of
   peace.
{1865}
   In the meanwhile the Piedmontese Government was to assume the
   responsibility of maintaining order and providing for military
   action. … The French and Piedmontese armies had won the
   battle of Solferino, and driven the enemy across the Mincio;
   their fleets were off the lagoons of Venice, and were even
   visible from the lofty Campanile of St. Mark. Italy was
   throbbing with a movement of national life daily gathering
   volume and force. Europe was impatiently expecting the next
   move. It took the unexpected form of an armistice, which the
   Emperor of the French proposed, on his sole responsibility, to
   the Emperor Francis Joseph on the 8th July. On the 12th the
   preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Victor
   Emmanuel was opposed to this act of his ally, but was unable
   to prevent it. The Italians were bitterly disappointed, and
   their anger was only too faithfully represented by Cavour
   himself. He hastened to the headquarters of the king,
   denounced in vehement language the whole proceeding, advised
   his majesty not to sign the armistice, not to accept Lombardy
   [see below], and to withdraw his troops from the Mincio to the
   Ticino. But Victor Emmanuel, though sympathising with the
   feelings of Italy and of his Minister, took a wiser and more
   judicious course than the one thus recommended. He accepted
   Cavour's resignation and signed the armistice, appending to
   his signature these words:—'J'accepte pour ce qui me
   concerne.' He reserved his liberty of action for the future
   and refused to pledge himself to anything more than a
   cessation of hostilities."

      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy from 1815 to 1890,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Bossoli,
      The War in Italy._

      _C. de Mazade,
      Life of Count Cavour,
      chapters 2-5._

      _C. Arrivabene,
      Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 1-13 (volume 1)._

      _C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,
      pages 271-340._

      _L. Kossuth,
      Memories of My Exile._

      _Countess E. M. Cesaresco,
      Italian Characters in the Epoch of Unification._

[Image: Two maps of Italy, A. D. 1815 to 1859, and 1861.]

ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
   The Treaty of Zurich and its practical negation.
   Annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia by Plebiscite.
   Revolution in Sicily and Naples.
   Garibaldi's great campaign of liberation.
   The Sardinian army in the Papal States.
   The new Kingdom of Italy proclaimed.

   "The treaty concluded at Zurich in November [1859] between the
   ambassadors of France, Austria, and Sardinia substantially
   ratified the preliminaries arranged at Villafranca. Lombardy
   passed to the king of Sardinia; Venetia was retained by
   Austria. The rulers of Modena and Parma were to be restored,
   the papal power again established in the Legations, while the
   various states of the peninsula, excepting Sardinia and the
   Two Sicilies, were to form a confederation under the
   leadership of the Pope. According to the terms of the treaty
   Lombardy was the only state directly benefited by the war. …
   The people of central Italy showed no inclination to resume
   the old régime. They maintained their position firmly and
   consistently, despite the decisions of the Zurich Congress,
   the advice of the French emperor, and the threatening attitude
   of Naples and Rome. … The year closed without definite
   action, leaving the provisional governments in control. In
   fact, matters were simply drifting, and it seemed imperative
   to take some vigorous measures to terminate so abnormal a
   condition of affairs. Finally the project of a European
   congress was suggested. There was but one opinion as to who
   should represent Italy in such an event. … Cavour …
   returned to the head of affairs in January. This event was
   simultaneous with the removal of M. Walewski at Paris and a
   change in the policy of the French government. The emperor no
   longer advised the central Italians to accept the return of
   their rulers. His influence at Rome was exercised to induce
   the Pope to allow his subjects in the Legations to have their
   will. … The scheme of a European congress was abandoned.
   With France at his back to neutralize Austria, Cavour had
   nothing to fear. … He suggested to the emperor that the
   central Italians be allowed to settle their fate by
   plebiscite. This method was to a certain extent a craze with
   the emperor, … and Cavour was not surprised at the
   affirmative reply he received to his proposal. The elections
   took place in March, and by an overwhelming majority the
   people of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Legations declared
   for annexation to Sardinia. Austria protested, but could do no
   more in the face of England and France. Naples followed the
   Austrian example, while almost simultaneously with the news of
   the elections there arrived at Turin the papal excommunication
   for Victor Emmanuel and his subjects. On the 2d of April the
   king opened the new parliament and addressed himself to the
   representatives of 12,000,000 Italians. The natural enthusiasm
   attending the session was seriously dampened by the royal
   announcement that, subject to the approval of their citizens
   and the ratification of parliament, Nice and Savoy were to be
   returned to France. It was, in fact, the concluding
   installment of the price arranged at Plombières to be paid for
   the French troops in the campaign of the previous year. …
   General Garibaldi, who sat in the parliament for Nice, was
   especially prominent in the angry debates that followed. …
   When the transfer had been ratified he withdrew to a humble
   retreat in the island of Caprera. … But the excitement over
   the loss of Nice and Savoy was soon diminished by the
   startling intelligence which arrived of rebellion in the
   Neapolitan dominions. Naples was mutinous, while in Sicily,
   Palermo and Messina were in open revolt. Garibaldi's time had
   come. Leaving Caprera, he made for Piedmont, and hastily
   organized a band of volunteers to assist in the popular
   movement. On the night of May 6, with about a thousand
   enthusiastic spirits, he embarked from the coast near Genoa in
   two steamers and sailed for Sicily. Cavour in the mean time
   winked at this extraordinary performance. He dispatched
   Admiral Persano with a squadron ostensibly to intercept the
   expedition, but in reality 'to navigate between it and the
   hostile Neapolitan fleet.' On the 11th Garibaldi landed safely
   at Marsala under the sleepy guns of a Neapolitan man-of-war.
   On the 14th he was at Salemi, where he issued the following
   proclamation: 'Garibaldi, commander-in-chief of the national
   forces in Sicily, on the invitation of the principal citizens,
   and on the deliberation of the free communes of the island,
   considering that in times of war it is necessary that the
   civil and military powers should be united in one person,
   assumes in the name of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, the
   Dictatorship in Sicily.'" On the 26th Garibaldi attacked
   Palermo; on the 6th of June he was in possession of the city
   and citadel; on the 25th of July Messina was surrendered to him.
{1866}
   "Perhaps the excitement at Turin during these days was second
   only to that which animated the great Sicilian cities. The
   guns of Bomba's fleet at Palermo were no more active than the
   diplomatic artillery which the courts of Central Europe
   trained upon the government at Turin. … Cavour's position at
   this time was a trying, delicate, and from some points of view
   a questionable one. He had publicly expressed regret for
   Garibaldi's expedition, while privately he encouraged it. …
   Cavour's desire to see Garibaldi in Calabria was changed, a
   little later. La Farina was at Palermo in behalf of the
   Sardinian government, to induce Garibaldi to consent to the
   immediate annexation of Sicily to the new Italian kingdom.
   This Garibaldi declined to do, preferring to wait until he
   could lay the entire Neapolitan realm and Rome as well at the
   feet of Victor Emmanuel. This altered the aspect of affairs.
   It was evident that Garibaldi was getting headstrong. It was
   Cavour's constant solicitude to keep the Italian question in
   such a shape as to allow no foreign power a pretext for
   interference. Garibaldi's design against Rome garrisoned by
   French troops would be almost certain to bring on foreign
   complications and ruin the cause of Italian unity." On the
   19th of August, Garibaldi crossed his army from Sicily to the
   mainland and advanced on Naples. "On the evening of September
   6 the king embarked on a Spanish ship, and leaving his
   mutinous navy at anchor in the bay, quit forever those
   beautiful shores which his race had too long defiled. On the
   morning of September 7 Garibaldi was at Salerno; before night
   he had reached Naples, and its teeming thousands had run mad.
   … The Neapolitan fleet went over en masse to Garibaldi, and
   by him was placed under the orders of the Sardinian admiral.
   The Garibaldian troops came swarming into the city, some by
   land and others by sea. … Francis II. had shut himself up in
   the fortress of Gaeta with the remnants of his army, holding
   the line of the Volturno. … At Turin the state of unrest
   continued. Garibaldi's presence at Naples was attended with
   grave perils. Of course his designs upon Rome formed the
   principal danger, but his conspicuous inability as an
   organizer was one of scarcely less gravity. … Sardinian
   troops had become a necessity of the situation. … There was
   no time to lose. There could be no difficulty in finding an
   excuse to enter papal territory. The inhabitants of Umbria and
   the Marches, who had never ceased to appeal for annexation to
   the new kingdom, were suppressed by an army of foreign
   mercenaries that the Pope had mustered beneath his banner. …
   Cavour had interceded in vain with the Vatican to alter its
   course toward its disaffected subjects. At last, on September
   7, the day Garibaldi entered Naples, he sent the royal
   ultimatum to Cardinal Antonelli at Rome. … On the 11th the
   unfavorable reply of Antonelli was received, and the same day
   the Sardinian troops crossed the papal frontier. … Every
   European power except England, which expressed open
   satisfaction, protested against this action. There was an
   imposing flight of ambassadors from Turin, and an ominous
   commotion all along the diplomatic horizon. Cavour had not
   moved, however, without a secret understanding with Napoleon.
   … The Sardinian army advanced rapidly in two columns.
   General Fanti seized Perugia and Spoleto, while Cialdini on
   the east of the Apennines utterly destroyed the main papal
   army under the French general Lamoricière at Castelfidardo
   [September 17]. Lamoricière with a few followers gained
   Ancona, but finding that town covered by the guns of the
   Sardinian fleet, he was compelled to surrender. 'The
   pontifical mercenary corps' became a thing of the past, Cavour
   could turn his whole attention to Naples. He had obtained from
   parliament an enthusiastic permission to receive, if tendered,
   the allegiance of the Two Sicilies. The army was ordered
   across the Neapolitan frontier, and the king left for Ancona
   to take command. In the mean time on October 1 Garibaldi had
   inflicted another severe defeat to the royal Neapolitan army
   on the Volturno. The Sardinian advance was wholly unimpeded.
   … On November 7 the king entered Naples, and on the
   following day was waited upon by a deputation to announce the
   result of the election that Garibaldi had previously decreed.
   'Sire,' said their spokesman, 'The Neapolitan people,
   assembled in Comitia, by an immense majority have proclaimed
   you their king.' … Then followed an event so sublime as to
   be without parallel in these times of selfish ambition.
   Garibaldi bade farewell to his faithful followers, and,
   refusing all rewards, passed again to his quiet home in
   Caprera. … The people of Umbria and the Marches followed the
   lead of Naples in declaring themselves subjects of Victor
   Emmanuel. Except for the patrimony of St. Peter surrounding
   the city of Rome and the Austrian province of Venetia, Italy
   was united under the tricolor. While Garibaldi returned to his
   humble life, Cavour went to Turin to resume his labors. … On
   the 18th of February, 1861, the first national parliament
   representing the north and south met at Turin. Five days
   before, the last stronghold of Francis II. had capitulated,
   and the enthusiasm ran high. The kingdom of Italy was
   proclaimed, and the king confirmed as 'Victor Emmanuel II., by
   the grace of God and the will of the nation King of Italy.'
   … The work was almost done. The scheme that a few years
   before would have provoked a smile in any diplomatic circle in
   Europe had been perfected almost to the capstone. But the man
   who had conceived the plan and carried it through its darkest
   days was, not destined to witness its final consummation.
   Cavour was giving way. On May 29 he was stricken down with a
   violent illness." On June 6 he died. "To Mazzini belongs the
   credit of keeping alive the spirit of patriotism; Garibaldi is
   entitled to the admiration of the world as the pure patriot
   who fired men's souls; but Cavour was greater than either, and
   Mazzini and Garibaldi were but humble instruments in his
   magnificent plan of Italian regeneration."

      _H. Murdock,
      The Reconstruction of Europe,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. de Mazade,
      Life of Count Cavour,
      chapters 5-7._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      3d period (volume 2)._

      _E. Dicey,
      Victor Emmanuel,
      chapters 27-34._

      _E. About,
      The Roman Question._

      _The Chevalier O'Clery,
      The Making of Italy,
      chapters 7-12._

{1867}

ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
   The Roman question and the Venetian question.
   Impatience of the nation.
   Collision of Garibaldi with the government.
   Alliance with Prussia.
   War with Austria.
   Liberation and annexation of Venetia.

   "The new ministry was formed by Baron Ricasoli. … In the
   month of July, Russia and Prussia followed the example of
   England and France, and acknowledged Italian unity. … Baron
   Ricasoli only held office about nine months; not feeling equal
   to the difficulties he had to encounter, he resigned in March,
   1862, and Signor Ratazzi was empowered to form a new ministry.
   … The volunteer troops had become a source of serious
   embarrassment to the government. … It was found disagreeable
   and dangerous to have two standing armies under separate heads
   and a separate discipline, and it was proposed to amalgamate
   the Garibaldians with the royal troops. Endless disagreements
   arose out of this question. … As soon as this question was
   in a manner accommodated, a more serious one arose. The
   central provinces lost all patience in waiting so long for a
   peaceful solution of the Roman question. The leaders of the
   Young Italy party became more warlike in their language, and
   excited the peasantry to riotous proceedings, which the
   government had to put down forcibly, and this disagreeable
   fact helped to make the Ratazzi ministry unpopular.
   Garibaldi's name had been used as an incentive to those
   disturbances, and now the hot-headed general embarked for
   Sicily, to take the command of a troop who were bound for the
   Eternal City, resolved to cut with the sword the Gordian knot
   of the Roman question. The government used energetic measures
   to maintain its dignity, and not allow an irregular warfare to
   be carried on without its sanction. The times were difficult,
   no doubt, and the ministry had a hard road to tread. … The
   Garibaldians were already in the field, and having crossed
   from Sicily, were marching through Calabria with
   ever-increasing forces and the cry of 'Rome or death' on their
   lips. Victor Emmanuel had now no choice left him but to put
   down rebellion by force of arms. General Cialdini's painful
   duty it was to lead the royal troops on this occasion. He
   encountered the Garibaldians at Aspromonte, in Calabria, and
   on their refusing to surrender to the king, a fight ensued in
   which the volunteers were of course defeated, and their
   officers arrested. Garibaldi, with a ball in his foot, from
   the effects of which he has never recovered, was carried a
   state prisoner to Piedmont. … This unhappy episode was a
   bitter grief to Victor Emmanuel. … Aspromonte gave a final
   blow to the Ratazzi ministry. Never very popular, it was
   utterly shaken by the reaction in favour of Garibaldi. …
   After a good deal of worry and consultation, the king decided
   to call Luigi Carlo Farini to office. … Unhappily his health
   obliged him to retire very soon from public life, and he was
   succeeded by Minghetti. On the whole this first year without
   Cavour had been a very trying one to Victor Emmanuel. …
   Meantime the Roman question remained in abeyance—to the great
   detriment of the nation, for it kept Central and Southern
   Italy in a state of fermentation which the government could
   not long hold in check. The Bourbon intrigues at Rome,
   encouraging brigandage in the Two Sicilies, destroyed all
   security of life and property, and impeded foreigners from
   visiting the country. The Emperor of the French, occupying the
   false position of champion of Italian independence and
   protector of the temporal power of the Pope, would not do
   anything, nor let the Italian Government do anything, towards
   settling the momentous question. … Victor Emmanuel, who had
   his eye on Venice all the time, having a fixed impression that
   if it could be recovered he would find less difficulty in
   getting rid of the foreign occupation in Rome, now adopted
   energetic measures to bring about a settlement of this
   Venetian question, urging the English Government to use its
   influence with Austria to induce her to accept some compromise
   and surrender the Italian province peaceably. … Meantime the
   Italian Government continued to invite the French to withdraw
   their forces from the Roman States, and leave the Pope face to
   face with his own subjects without the aid of foreign
   bayonets. This the emperor, fearing to offend the papal party,
   could not make up his mind to do. But to make the road to Rome
   easier for the Italians, he proposed a transfer of the capital
   from Turin to some more southern town, Florence or Naples—he
   did not care which. The French minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
   said:—'Of course in the end you will go to Rome. But it is
   important that between our evacuation and your going there,
   such an interval of time and such a series of events should
   elapse as to prevent people establishing any connection
   between the two facts. France must not have any
   responsibility.' … The king accepted the conditions, which
   provided that the French were to evacuate Rome in two years,
   and fixed on Florence as the residence of the court. … On
   November 18, 1860, the first Parliament was opened in
   Florence. … The quarrel between Austria and Prussia [see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866] was growing all this time, and Italy
   proposed an alliance defensive and offensive with the latter
   power. … The treaty was concluded April 8, 1866. When this
   fact became known, Austria, on the brink of war with Prussia,
   began to think that she must rid herself in some way of the
   worry of the Italians on her southern frontier, in order to be
   free to combat her powerful northern enemy. The cabinet of
   Vienna did not apply directly to the cabinet of Florence, but
   to that arbiter of the destinies of nations, Napoleon III.,
   proposing to cede Venetia on condition that the Italian
   government should detach itself from the Prussian alliance.
   … After an ineffectual attempt to accommodate matters by a
   congress, war was declared against Austria, on June 20, 1866,
   and La Marmora, having appointed Ricasoli as his deputy at the
   head of the council, led the army northwards. … Victor
   Emmanuel appointed his cousin regent, and carried his sons
   along with him to the seat of war. … The forces of Austria
   were led by the able and experienced commander, the Archduke
   Albert, who had distinguished himself at Novara. On the
   ill-omened field of Custozza, where the Italians had been
   defeated in 1849, the opposing armies met [June 24]; and both
   being in good condition, well disciplined and brave, there was
   fought a prolonged and bloody battle, in which the Italians
   were worsted, but not routed. … On July 20 the Italian navy
   suffered an overwhelming defeat at Lissa in the Adriatic, and
   these two great misfortunes plunged Victor Emmanuel into the
   deepest grief. He felt disabled from continuing the war: all
   the sacrifice of life had been in vain: national unity was as
   far off as ever. … Meantime the Prussian arms were
   everywhere victorious over Austria, and about ten days after
   the battle of Custozza it was announced in the Moniteur that
   Austria had asked the Emperor Napoleon's mediation, offering
   to cede him Venice, and that he was making over that province
   to the King of Italy.
{1868}
   Italy could not accept it without the consent of her ally
   Prussia; and while negotiations were going forward on the
   subject, the brief seven weeks' campaign was brought to a
   conclusion by the great victory of Sadowa, and on July 26 the
   preliminaries of peace were signed by the Austrian and
   Prussian plenipotentiaries. … Venice was restored to Italy
   by the Emperor of France, with the approval of Prussia. There
   was a sting in the thought that it was not wrung from the
   talons of the Austrian eagle by the valour of Italian arms,
   but by the force of diplomacy; still it was a delightful fact
   that Venice was free, with the tricolour waving on St. Mark's.
   The Italian soil was delivered from foreign occupation. … As
   soon as the treaty was signed at Vienna, October 2, the
   Venetian Assemblies unanimously elected Victor Emmanuel with
   acclamations, and begged for immediate annexation to the
   Kingdom of Italy. On November 4, in the city of Turin, Victor
   Emmanuel received the deputation which came to proffer him the
   homage of the inhabitants of Venetia. … On November 7 Victor
   Emmanuel made a solemn entry into the most beautiful, and,
   after Rome, the most interesting city of the Italian
   peninsula. … Hot upon the settlement of the Venetian
   question, came the discussion of that of Rome, which after the
   evacuation of the French troops [November, 1866] seemed more
   complicated than ever. The Catholic powers were now anxious to
   accommodate the quarrel between Italy and the Pope, and they
   offered to guarantee him his income and his independence if he
   would reconcile himself to the national will. But Pius IX. was
   immovable in his determination to oppose it to the last."

      _G. S. Godkin,
      Life of Victor Emmanuel II.,
      chapters 23-25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy from 1815 to 1890,
      chapter 11._

      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      4th period, chapter 1 (volume 2),
      and volume 3, chapter 8._

ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Settlement of the Roman question.
   Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.
   Rome in the possession of the king of Italy.

   Progress made by diplomacy in the settlement of the Roman
   question "was too slow for Garibaldi. He had once more fallen
   under the influence of the extreme republicans, and in 1867 he
   declared that he would delay no longer in planting the
   republican banner on the Vatican. Between these hot-headed and
   fanatical republicans on the one side, the Italian
   Ultramontanes on another, and the French Emperor on the third,
   the position of Victor Emmanuel was anything but enviable. In
   the autumn of 1867 Garibaldi was suddenly arrested by the
   Government, but released on condition that he would remain
   quietly at Caprera. But meanwhile the volunteers under Menotti
   Garibaldi (the great chief's son) had advanced into the Papal
   States. The old warrior was burning to be with them. On the
   14th of October he effected his escape from Caprera, and
   managed eventually to join his son in the Romagna. Together
   they advanced on Rome, and won, after tremendous fighting, the
   great victory at Monte Rotundo. Meanwhile an army of
   occupation sent by the Government from Florence had crossed
   the Roman frontier, and a French force had landed on the
   coast. Garibaldi's position was already critical, but his
   resolution was unbroken. 'The Government of Florence,' he
   said, in a proclamation to the volunteers, 'has invaded the
   Roman territory, already won by us with precious blood from
   the enemies of Italy; we ought to receive our brothers in arms
   with love, and aid them in driving out of Rome the mercenary
   sustainers of tyranny; but if base deeds, the continuation of
   the vile convention of September, in mean consort with
   Jesuitism, shall urge us to lay down our arms in obedience to
   the order of the 2d December, then will I let the world know
   that I alone, a Roman general, with full power, elected by the
   universal suffrage of the only legal Government in Rome, that
   of the republic, have the right to maintain myself in arms in
   this the territory subject to my jurisdiction; and then, if
   any of these my volunteers, champions of liberty and Italian
   unity, wish to have Rome as the capital of Italy, fulfilling
   the vote of parliament and the nation, they must not put down
   their arms until Italy shall have acquired liberty of
   conscience and worship, built upon the ruin of Jesuitism, and
   until the soldiers of tyrants shall be banished from our
   land.' The position taken up by Garibaldi is perfectly
   intelligible. Rome we must have, if possible, by legal
   process, in conjunction with the royal arms'; but if they will
   stand aside, even if they will oppose, none the less Rome must
   be annexed to Italy. Unfortunately Garibaldi had left out of
   account the French force despatched by Napoleon III. to defend
   the Temporal dominions of the Pope, a force which even at this
   moment was advancing to the attack. The two armies met near
   the little village of Mentana, ill matched in every respect.
   The volunteers, numerous indeed but ill disciplined and badly
   armed, brought together, held together simply by the magic of
   a name, the French, admirably disciplined, armed with the
   fatal chassepots, fighting the battle of their ancient Church.
   The Garibaldians were terribly defeated. Victor Emmanuel
   grieved bitterly, like a true, warm-hearted father for the
   fate of his misguided but generous-hearted sons. … To the
   Emperor of the French he wrote an ardent appeal begging him to
   break with the Clericals and put himself at the head of the
   Liberal party in Europe, at the same time warning him that the
   old feeling of gratitude towards the French in Italy had quite
   disappeared. 'The late events have suffocated every
   remembrance of gratitude in the heart of Italy. It is no
   longer in the power of the Government to maintain the alliance
   with France. The chassepot gun at Mentana has given it a
   mortal blow.' At the same time the rebels were visited with
   condign punishment. Garibaldi himself was arrested, but after
   a brief imprisonment at Varignano was permitted to retire once
   more to Caprera. A prisoner so big as Garibaldi is always an
   embarrassment to gaolers. But the last act in the great drama
   … was near at hand. In 1870 the Franco-German War broke out.
   The contest, involving as it did the most momentous
   consequences, was as brief as it was decisive. The French, of
   course, could no longer maintain their position as champions
   of the Temporal power. Once more, therefore, the King of Italy
   attempted, with all the earnestness and with all the
   tenderness at his command, to induce the Pope to come to terms
   and accept the position, at once dignified and independent,
   which the Italian Government was anxious to secure to him. …
{1869}
   But the Pope still unflinchingly adhered to the position he
   had taken up. … A feint of resistance was made, but on the
   20th of September (1870) the royal troops entered Rome, and
   the Tricolour was mounted on the palace of the Capitol. So
   soon as might be a plebiscite was taken. The numbers are
   significant—for the King, 40,788, for the Pope, 46. But
   though the work was thus accomplished in the autumn of 1870,
   it was not until 2d June 1871 that the King made his triumphal
   entry into the capital of Italy."

      _J. A. R. Marriott,
      The Makers of Modern Italy,
      pages 72-76._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Garibaldi,
      Autobiography,
      volume 3, chapters 8-9._

      _G. S. Godkin,
      Life of Victor Emmanuel,
      chapter 32 (volume 2)._

ITALY: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The tasks and burdens of the United Nation.
   Military and colonial ambitions.
   The Triple Alliance.

   "Italy now [In 1870] stood before the world as a nation of
   twenty-five million inhabitants, her frontiers well defined,
   her needs very evident. Nevertheless, if her national
   existence was to be more than a name, she must have discipline
   in self-government, and she must as quickly as possible
   acquire the tools and methods of the civilization prevailing
   among those nations into whose company her victories had
   raised her. Two thirds of her people lagged behind the Western
   world not only in material inventions, but in education and
   civic training. Railroads and telegraphs, the wider
   application of steam to industries, schools, courts, the
   police, had all to be provided, and provided quickly.
   Improvements which England and France had added gradually and
   paid for gradually, Italy had to organize and pay for in a few
   years. Hence a levying of heavy taxes, and exorbitant
   borrowing from the future in the public debt. Not only this,
   but ancient traditions, the memories of feuds between town and
   town, had to be obliterated; the people had to be made truly
   one people, so that Venetians, or Neapolitans, or Sicilians
   should each feel that they were first of all Italians.
   National uniformity must supplant provincial peculiarity;
   there must be one language, one code of laws, one common
   interest; in a word, the new nation must be Italianized. The
   ease and rapidity with which the Italians have progressed in
   all these respects have no parallel in modern times. Though
   immense the undertaking, they have, in performing it, revealed
   an adaptability to new conditions, a power of transformation
   which are among the most remarkable characteristics of their
   race, and the strongest proofs that ruin will not now engulf
   them. Only a race incapable of readjusting itself need
   despair. Happy had Italy been if, undistracted by temptation,
   she had pursued the plain course before her; still happy, had
   she resisted such temptation. But nations, like individuals,
   are not made all of one piece: they, too, acknowledge the
   better reason, but follow the worse; they, too, through pride
   or vanity or passion, often forfeit the winnings from years of
   toil. … Italy was recognized as a great power by her
   neighbors, and she willingly persuaded herself that it was her
   duty to do what they did. In this civilized age, the first
   requisite of a great power is a large standing army. … A
   large standing army being the first condition of ranking among
   the great powers, Italy set about preparing one. … Perhaps
   more than any other European nation she was excusable in
   desiring to show that her citizens could become soldiers, for
   she had been taunted time out of mind with her effeminacy, her
   cowardice. It might be argued, too, that she received a larger
   dividend in indirect compensation for her capital invested in
   the army than her neighbors received from theirs. Uniform
   military service helped to blot out provincial lines and to
   Italianize all sections; it also furnished rudimentary
   education to the vast body of illiterate conscripts. These
   ends might have been reached at far less cost by direct and
   natural means; but this fact should not lessen the credit due
   to the Italian military system for furthering them. Tradition,
   example, national sensitiveness, all conspired in this way to
   persuade Italy to saddle an immense army on her back. … One
   evidence of being a 'great power,' according to the political
   standard of the time, consists in ability to establish
   colonies, or at least a protectorate, in distant lands;
   therefore Italian Jingoes goaded their government on to plant
   the Italian flag in Africa. France was already mistress of
   Algiers; Spain held a lien on Morocco; Italy could accordingly
   do no less than spread her influence over Tunis. For a few
   years Italy complacently imagined that she was as good as her
   rivals in the possession of a foreign dependency. Then a
   sudden recrudescence of Jingoism in France caused the French
   to occupy Tunis. The Italians were very angry; but when they
   sounded the situation, they realized that it would be folly to
   go to war over it. … Not warned by this experience, Italy, a
   few years later, plunged yet more deeply into the uncertain
   policy of colonization. England and France having fallen out
   over the control of Egypt, then England, having virtually made
   the Khedive her vassal, suggested that it would be a very fine
   thing for Italy to establish a colony far down on the coast of
   the Red Sea, whence she could command the trade of Abyssinia.
   Italian Jingoes jumped at the suggestion, and for ten years
   the red-white-and-green flag has waved over Massaua. But the
   good that Italy has derived from this acquisition has yet to
   appear. … Equally slow have they been to learn that their
   partnership in the Triple Alliance [see TRIPLE ALLIANCE] has
   entailed upon them sacrifices out of all proportion to the
   benefits. To associate on apparently even terms with Germany
   and Austria was doubtless gratifying to national vanity, …
   but who can show that Italy has been more secure from attack
   since she entered that league than she was before? … For the
   sake … of a delusive honor,—the honor of posing as the
   partner of the arbiters of Europe,—Italy has, since 1882,
   seen her army and her debt increase, and her resources
   proportionately diminish. None of her ministers has had the
   courage to suggest quitting a ruinous policy; on the contrary,
   they have sought hither and thither to find means to
   perpetuate it without actually breaking the country's back.
   … Yet not on this account shall we despair of a country
   which, in spite of folly, has achieved much against great
   odds, and which has shown a wonderful capacity for sloughing
   off her past. Hardship itself, though it be the penalty of
   error, may, by restricting her ability to go astray, lead her
   back to the path of reason."

      _W. R. Thayer,
      Some Causes of the Italian Crisis
      (Atlantic, April, 1894)._

      See, also, IRREDENTISTS.

{1670}

ITHACA.

   One of the seven Ionian islands, small and unimportant, but
   interesting as being the Homeric island-kingdom of
   Ulysses—the principal scene of the story of the Odyssey. The
   island has been more or less explored, with a view to
   identifying the localities mentioned in the epic, by Sir
   William Gell, by Colonel Leake, and by Dr. Schliemann. Some
   account of the latter's work and its results is given in the
   introduction to his "Ilios."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 3, note I (volume 1)._

ITHOME.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 743-510;
      also, MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

ITOCOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

ITONOMOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ITURBIDE, Empire of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

ITUZAINGO, Battle of (1827).

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

IUKA, Battle of.

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

IVAN I.,
   Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1328-1340.

   Ivan II., Grand Prince of Moscow, 1352-1359.

   Ivan III. (called The Great), the first Czar of Muscovy, of
   Russia, 1462-1505.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

   Ivan IV. (called The Terrible), Czar of Russia, 1533-1584.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

   Ivan V., Czar of Russia, 1682-1689.

   Ivan VI., Czar of Russia, 1740-1741.

IVERNI, The.

   See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

IVRY, Battle of (1590).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

IVY LANE CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS, DR. JOHNSON'S.

J.

JACK CADE'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

JACK'S LAND.

      See NO MAN'S LAND (ENGLAND).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Campaign against the Creek Indians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Victory at New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Campaign in Florida.

         See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

JACKSON, ANDREW.
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828, to 1837.

JACKSON, STONEWALL (General Thomas J.)
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   First campaign in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Second campaign in the Shenandoah.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Peninsular campaign.

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

JACKSON, STONEWALL
   Last flank movement.
   Death.

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

JACKSON, Mississippi: A. D. 1863.
   Capture and recapture by the Union forces.
   Sack and ruin.

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

JACOBIN CLUBS.
JACOBINS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

JACOBITE CHURCH, The.

   The great religious dispute of the 5th century, concerning the
   single or the double nature of Christ, as God and as man,
   left, in the end, two extreme parties, the Monophysites and
   the Nestorians, exposed alike to the persecutions of the
   orthodox church, as established in its faith by the Council of
   Chalcedon, by the Roman Pope and by the emperors Justin and
   Justinian. The Monophysite party, strongest in Syria, was
   threatened with extinction; but a monk named James, or
   Jacobus, Baradæus—"Al Baradai," "the man in rags,"—imparted
   new life to it by his zeal and activity, and its members
   acquired from him the name of Jacobites. Amida (now Diarbekir)
   on the Tigris became the seat of the Jacobite patriarchs and
   remains so to this day. Abulpharagius, the oriental historian
   of the 13th century, was their most distinguished scholar, and
   held the office of Mafrian or vice-patriarch, so to speak, of
   the East. Their communities are mostly confined at present to
   the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and number less
   than 200,000 souls.

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

JACOBITES.

   After the revolution of 1688 in England, which expelled James
   II. from the throne, his partisans, who wished to restore him,
   were called Jacobites, an appellation derived from the Latin
   form of his name—Jacobus. The name adhered after James' death
   to the party which maintained the rights of his son and
   grandson, James Stuart and Charles Edward, the "Old
   Pretender" and the "Young Pretender," as they were
   respectively called.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

   The Jacobites rose twice in rebellion.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715;
      and 1745-1746.

JACQUERIE, The Insurrection of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

   ----------JAFFA: Start--------

JAFFA (ANCIENT JOPPA): A. D. 1196-1197.
   Taken and retaken by the German Crusaders.


      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

JAFFA: A. D. 1799.
   Capture by Bonaparte.
   Massacre of prisoners.
   Reported poisoning of the sick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

   ----------JAFFA: End--------

JAGELLONS, The dynasty of the.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

JAGIR.

   "A jagir [in India] is, literally, land given by a government
   as a reward for services rendered."

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Lord Clive,
      page 123, foot-note._

JAHANGIR (Salim),
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1605-1627.

JAINISM.
JAINS.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312

JAITCHE, DEFENSE OF (1527).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.).

JALALÆAN ERA.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

{1871}

JALULA, Battle of.

   One of the battles in which the Arabs, under the first
   successors of Mahomet, conquered the Persian empire. Fought A.
   D. 637.

      G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

   ----------JAMAICA: Start--------

JAMAICA: A. D. 1494.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1509.
   Granted to Ojeda and Nicuesa.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655
   The English conquest and colonization.

   In the spring of 1655, having determined upon an alliance with
   France and war with Spain, Cromwell fitted out an expedition
   under admirals Venables and Pen, secretly commissioned to
   attack Cuba and St. Domingo. Frustrated in an attempt against
   the latter island, the expedition made a descent on the island
   of Jamaica with better success. "This great gain was yet held
   insufficient to balance the first defeat; and on the return of
   Pen and Venables they were both committed to the Tower. I may
   pause for an instant here to notice a sound example of
   Cromwell's far-seeing sagacity. Though men scouted in that day
   the acquisition of Jamaica, he saw its value in itself, and
   its importance in relation to future attempts on the continent
   of America. Exerting the inhuman power of a
   despot—occasionally, as hurricanes and other horrors,
   necessary for the purification of the world—he ordered his
   son Henry to seize on 1,000 young girls in Ireland and send
   them over to Jamaica, for the purpose of increasing population
   there. A year later, and while the Italian Sagredo was in
   London, he issued an order that all females of disorderly
   lives should be arrested and shipped for Barbadoes for the
   like purpose. Twelve hundred were accordingly sent in three
   ships."

      _J. Forster,
      Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Penn,
      Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn, Admiral,
      volume 2, page 124, and appendix H._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.
   Development of the British colony.
   The Buccaneers.
   The Maroon wars.

   "Cromwell set himself to maintain and develop his new
   conquest. He issued a proclamation encouraging trade and
   settlement in the island by exemption from taxes. In order to
   'people and plant' it, he ordered an equal number of young men
   and women to be sent over from Ireland, he instructed the
   Scotch government to apprehend and transport the idle and
   vagrant, and he sent agents to the New England colonies and
   the other West Indian islands in order to attract settlers.
   After the first three or four years this policy of encouraging
   emigration, continued in spite of the Protector's death, bore
   due fruit, and Jamaica became to a singular extent a
   receptacle for the most varied types of settlers, for freemen
   as well as for political offenders or criminals from Newgate,
   and for immigrants from the colonies as well as from the
   mother country. … The death of Cromwell brought over
   adherents of the Parliamentary party, ill content with the
   restoration of the Stuarts; the evacuation of Surinam in
   favour of the Dutch brought in a contingent of planters in
   1675; the survivors of the ill-fated Scotch colony at Darien
   came over in 1699; and the Rye House Plot, Sedgmoor, and the
   risings of 1715 and 1745 all contributed to the population of
   the island. Most of all, however, the buccaneers made Jamaica
   great and prosperous. … Situated as the island was, well
   inside the ring of the Spanish possessions, the English
   occupation of Jamaica was a godsend to the buccaneers, while
   their privateering trade was exactly suited to the restless
   soldiers who formed the large bulk of the early colonists. So
   Port Royal became in a few years a great emporium of
   ill-gotten wealth, and the man who sacked Panama became Sir
   Henry Morgan, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. … In 1661
   Charles II. sanctioned the beginnings of civil government. …
   Municipal institutions were introduced, judges and magistrates
   were appointed, land grants were issued, and the island began
   to take the form and substance of an English colony. The
   constitution thenceforward consisted of a Governor, a
   nominated Council, and an elected Assembly; and the first
   Assembly, consisting of 30 persons, met in January, 1664. …
   It was not long before the representative body began to assert
   its independence by opposition to the Crown, and in 1678 the
   Home government invited conflict by trying to apply to Jamaica
   the system which had been introduced into Ireland by the
   notorious Poynings' law. Under this system no Assembly could
   be summoned for legislative purposes except under special
   directions from home, and its functions would have been
   limited to registering consent to laws which had already been
   put into approved shape in England." Conflict over this,
   attempt to deal with Jamaica as "a conquered and tributary
   dependency" did not end until 1728, when the colonists bought
   relief from it by settling on the Crown an "irrevocable
   revenue" of £8,000 per annum. "About the time when the
   constitutional difficulty was settled, the Maroon question was
   pressing itself more and more upon the attention of the
   colonial government. The penalty which Jamaica paid for being
   a large and mountainous island was, that it harboured in its
   forests and ravines a body of men who, throughout its history
   down to the present century, were a source of anxiety and
   danger. The original Maroons, or mountaineers, for that is the
   real meaning of the term, were … the slaves of Spaniards who
   retreated into the interior when the English took the island,
   and sallied out from time to time to harass the invaders and
   cut off stragglers and detached parties. … Maroon or Maron
   is an abbreviation of Cimaron, and is derived from the Spanish
   or Portuguese 'Cima,' or mountain top. Skeat points out that
   the word is probably of Portuguese origin, the 'C' having been
   pronounced as 'S.' Benzoni (edited by the Hakluyt Society),
   who wrote about 1565, speaks of 'Cimaroui' as being the
   Spanish name for outlawed slaves in Hispaniola. … It is
   probable that the danger would have been greater if the
   outlaws had been a united band, but there were divisions of
   race and origin among them. The Maroons proper, the slaves of
   the Spaniards and their descendants, were mainly in the east
   of the island among the Blue Mountains, while the mountains of
   the central district were the refuge of runaways from English
   masters, including Africans of different races, as well as
   Madagascars or Malays. Towards the end of the seventeenth
   century the newer fugitives had found in a negro named Cudjoe
   an able and determined leader, and thenceforward the
   resistance to the government became more organised and
   systematic. …
{1872}
   Finally, in 1738, Governor Trelawny made overtures of peace to
   the rebels, which were accepted. … By this treaty the
   freedom of the negroes was guaranteed, special reserves were
   assigned to them, they were left under the rule of their own
   captains assisted by white superintendents, but were bound
   over to help the government against foreign invasion from
   without and slave rebellions from within. A similar treaty was
   made with the eastern Maroons, and the whole of these blacks,
   some 600 in number, were established in five settlements. …
   Under these conditions the Maroons gave little trouble till
   the end of the 18th century. … The last Maroon war occurred
   in 1795." When the insurgent Maroons surrendered, the next
   year, they were, in violation of the terms made with them,
   transported to Nova Scotia, and afterwards to the warmer
   climate of Sierra Leone. "Thus ended the last Maroon
   rebellion; but … it affected only one section of these negro
   freemen, and even their descendants returned in many cases to
   Jamaica at a later date."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2, chapter 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Bridges,
      Annals of Jamaica,
      volume 1, and volume 2, chapters 1-16._

      _R. C. Dallas,
      History of the Maroons._

JAMAICA: A. D. 1689-1762.
   The English slave trade.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.
   Destructive Earthquake.

   "An earthquake of terrible violence laid waste in less than
   three minutes the flourishing colony of Jamaica. Whole
   plantations changed their place. Whole villages were swallowed
   up. Port Royal, the fairest and wealthiest city which the
   English had yet built in the New World, renowned for its
   quays, for its warehouses, and for its stately streets, which
   were said to rival Cheapside, was turned into a mass of ruins.
   Fifteen hundred of the inhabitants were buried under their own
   dwellings."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 19 (volume 4)._

JAMAICA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
   Governor Eyre's suppression of Insurrection.

   In October, 1865, there occurred an insurrection among the
   colored people of one district of Jamaica, the suppression of
   which throws "a not altogether pleasant light upon English
   methods, when applied to the government of a subject race. …
   The disturbances were confined to the district and parish of
   St. Thomas in the East. There were local grievances arising
   from a dispute between Mr. Gordon, a native [colored]
   proprietor, and Baron Ketelholdt, the custos of the parish.
   Mr. Gordon, a dissenter, and apparently a reformer of abuses
   and unpopular among his fellows, had been deprived of his
   place among the magistrates, and prevented from filling the
   office of churchwarden to which he was elected. The expenses
   of the suits against him had been defrayed from the public
   purse. The native Baptists, the sect to which he belonged,
   were angry with what they regarded as at once an act of
   persecution and a misappropriation of the public money.
   Indignation meetings had been held. … Behind this quarrel,
   which would not of itself have produced much result, there lay
   more general grievances. … There was a real grievance in the
   difficulty of obtaining redress through law administered
   entirely by landlords; and as a natural consequence there had
   grown up a strong mistrust of the law itself, and a complete
   alienation between the employer and the employed. To this was
   added a feeling on the part of the class above the ordinary
   labourer, known as the free settlers, that they were unduly
   rented, and obliged to pay rent for land which they should
   have held free; and there was a very general though vague
   expectation that in some way or other the occupiers would be
   freed from the payment of rent. The insurrection broke out in
   October;" a small riot, at first, at Morant Bay, in which a
   policeman was beaten; then an attempt to arrest one of the
   alleged rioters, a colored preacher, Paul Bogle by name, and a
   formidable resistance to the attempt by 400 of his friends.
   "On the next day, when the Magistrates and Vestry were
   assembled in the Court-House at Morant Bay, a crowd of
   insurgents made their appearance, the volunteers were called
   out, and the Riot Act read; and after a skirmish the
   Court-House was taken and burnt, 18 of the defenders killed
   and 30 wounded. The jail was broken open and several stores
   sacked. There was some evidence that the rising was
   premeditated, and that a good deal of drilling had been going
   on among the blacks under the command of Bogle. From Morant
   Bay armed parties of the insurgents passed inland through the
   country attacking the plantations, driving the inhabitants to
   take refuge in the bush, and putting some of the whites to
   death. The Governor of the Island at the time was Mr. Eyre
   [former explorer of Australia]. He at once summoned his Privy
   Council, and with their advice declared martial law over the
   county of Surrey, With the exception of the town of Kingston.
   Bodies of troops were also at once despatched to surround the
   insurgent district. … 439 persons fell victims to summary
   punishment, and not less than 1,000 dwellings were burnt;
   besides which, it would appear that at least 600 men and women
   were subjected to flogging, in some instances with
   circumstances of unusual cruelty. But the event which chiefly
   fixed the attention of the public in England was the summary
   conviction and execution of Mr. Gordon. He was undoubtedly a
   troublesome person, and there were circumstances raising a
   suspicion that he possessed a guilty knowledge of the intended
   insurrection. They were however far too slight to have secured
   his conviction before a Court of Law. But Governor Eyre caused
   him to be arrested in Kingston, where martial law did not
   exist, hurried on board ship and carried to Morant Bay, within
   the proclaimed district. He was there tried by a
   court-martial, consisting of three young officers," was
   sentenced to death, and immediately hanged.

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England: period 4,
      pages 413-415._

   "When the story reached England, in clear and trustworthy
   form, two antagonistic parties were instantly formed. The
   extreme on the one side glorified Governor Eyre, and held that
   by his prompt action he had saved the white population of
   Jamaica from all the horrors of triumphant negro insurrection.
   The extreme on the other side denounced him as a mere fiend.
   The majority on both sides were more reasonable; but the
   difference between them was only less wide. An association
   called the Jamaica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose
   of seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the most
   illustrious Englishmen. …
{1873}
   Another association was founded, on the opposite side, for the
   purpose of sustaining Governor Eyre; and it must be owned that
   it too had great names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the
   one side, and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each
   man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the Jamaica
   negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tennyson, Mr.
   Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle; we know now that
   Mr. Dickens was of the same way of thinking. Mr. Herbert
   Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Goldwin Smith, were in
   agreement with Mr. Mill. … No one needs to be told that Mr.
   Bright took the side of the oppressed, and Mr. Disraeli that
   of authority." A Commission of Inquiry sent out to investigate
   the whole matter, reported in April, 1866, commending the
   vigorous promptitude with which Governor Eyre had dealt with
   the disturbances at the beginning, but condemning the
   brutalities which followed, under cover of martial law, and
   especially the infamous execution of Gordon. The Jamaica
   Committee made repeated efforts to bring Governor Eyre's
   conduct to judicial trial; but without success. "The bills of
   indictment never got beyond the grand jury stage. The grand
   jury always threw them out. On one memorable occasion the
   attempt gave the Lord Chief Justice [Cockburn] of England an
   opportunity of delivering … to the grand jury … a charge
   entitled to the rank of a historical declaration of the law of
   England, and the limits of the military power even in cases of
   insurrection."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 49 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Smith,
      Life and Speeches of John Bright,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      _W. F. Finlason,
      History of the Jamaica Case._

   ----------JAMAICA: End----------

JAMES I.,
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1213-1276.

   James I., King of England, A. D. 1603-1625
   (he being, also, James VI., King of Scotland, 1567-1625).

   James I., King of Scotland, 1406-1437.

   James II., King of Aragon, 1291-1327;
   King of Sicily, 1285-1295.

   James II:, King of England, 1685-1689.

   James II., King of Scotland, 1437-1460.

   James III., King of Scotland, 1460-1488.

   James IV., King of Scotland, 1488-1513.

   James V., King of Scotland, 1513-1542.

JAMES ISLAND, Battle on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

JAMESTOWN, Virginia: A. D. 1607-1610.
   The founding of the colony.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607; and 1607-1610.

JAMNIA, Battle of.

   A defeat by Gorgias, the Syrian general, of part of the army
   of Judas Maccabæus which he left under his generals Joseph and
   Azarius, B. C. 164.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      book 12, chapter 8._

JAMNIA, The School of.

   A famous school of Jewish theology, established by Jochanan,
   who escaped from Jerusalem during the siege by Titus.

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 2, page 327._

JANICULUM, The.

      See LATIUM, and VATICAN.

JANISSARIES, Creation and destruction of the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359; and 1826.

JANKOWITZ, Battle of (1645).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

JANSENISTS, The.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

JANUS, The Temple of.

      See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

   ----------JAPAN: Start----------

JAPAN:
   Sketch of history to 1869.

   "To the eye of the critical investigator, Japanese history,
   properly so-called, opens only in the latter part of the 5th
   or the beginning of the 6th century after Christ, when the
   gradual spread of Chinese culture, filtering in through Korea,
   had sufficiently dispelled the gloom of original barbarism to
   allow of the keeping of records. The whole question of the
   credibility of the early history of Japan has been carefully
   gone into during the last ten years by Aston and others, with
   the result that the first date pronounced trustworthy is A. D.
   461, and it is discovered that even the annals of the 6th
   century are to be received with caution. We have ourselves no
   doubt of the justice of this negative criticism, and can only
   stand in amazement at the simplicity of most European writers,
   who have accepted without sifting them the uncritical
   statements of the Japanese annalists. … Japanese art and
   literature contain frequent allusions to the early history
   (so-called) of the country … as preserved in the works
   entitled Kojiki and Nihongi, both dating from the 8th century
   after Christ. … We include the mythology under the same
   heading, for the reason that it is absolutely impossible to
   separate the two. Why, indeed, attempt to do so, where both
   are equally fabulous? … Arrived at A. D. 600, we stand on
   terra firma. … About that time occurred the greatest event
   of Japanese history, the conversion of the nation to Buddhism
   (approximately A. D. 552-621). So far as can be gathered from
   the accounts of the early Chinese travellers, Chinese
   civilisation had slowly—very slowly—been gaining ground in
   the archipelago ever since the 3rd century after Christ. But
   when the Buddhist missionaries crossed the water, all Chinese
   institutions followed them and came in with a rush.
   Mathematical instruments and calendars were introduced; books
   began to be written (the earliest that has survived, and
   indeed nearly the earliest of all, is the already mentioned
   Kojiki, dating from A. D. 712); the custom of abdicating the
   throne in order to spend old age in prayer was adopted—a
   custom which, more than anything else, led to the effacement
   of the Mikado's authority during the Middle Ages. Sweeping
   changes in political arrangements began to be made in the year
   645, and before the end of the 8th century, the government had
   been entirely remodelled on the Chinese centralised
   bureaucratic plan, with a regular system of ministers
   responsible to the sovereign, who, as 'Son of Heaven,' was
   theoretically absolute. In practice this absolutism lasted but
   a short time, because the entourage and mode of life of the
   Mikados were not such as to make of them able rulers. They
   passed their time surrounded only by women and priests,
   oscillating between indolence and debauchery, between
   poetastering and gorgeous temple services. This was the
   brilliant age of Japanese classical literature, which lived
   and moved and had its being in the atmosphere of an effeminate
   court. The Fujiwara family engrossed the power of the state
   during this early epoch (A. D. 670-1050). While their sons
   held all the great posts of government, the daughters were
   married to puppet emperors. The next change resulted from the
   impatience of the always manly and warlike Japanese gentry at
   the sight of this sort of petticoat government.
{1874}
   The great clans of Taira and Minamoto arose, and struggled for
   and alternately held the reins of power during the second half
   of the 11th and the whole of the 12th century. … By the
   final overthrow of the Taira family at the sea fight of
   Dan-no-Ura in A. D. 1185, Yoritomo, the chief of the
   Minamotos, rose to supreme power, and obtained from the Court
   at Kyoto the title of Shogun [converted by western tongues
   into Tycoon], literally 'Generalissimo,' which had till then
   been applied in its proper meaning to those generals who were
   sent from time to time to subdue the Ainos or rebellious
   provincials, but which thenceforth took to itself a special
   sense, somewhat as the word Imperator (also meaning originally
   'general') did in Rome. The coincidence is striking. So is the
   contrast. For, as Imperial Rome never ceased to be
   theoretically a republic, Japan contrariwise, though
   practically and indeed avowedly ruled by the Shoguns from A.
   D. 1190 to 1867, always retained the Mikado as theoretical
   head of the state, descendant of the Sun-Goddess, fountain of
   all honour. There never were two emperors, acknowledged as
   such, one spiritual and one secular, as has been so often
   asserted by European writers. There never was but one
   emperor—an emperor powerless it is true, seen only by the
   women who attended him, often a mere infant in arms, who was
   discarded on reaching adolescence for another infant in arms.
   Still, he was the theoretical head of the state, whose
   authority was merely delegated to the Shogun as, so to say,
   Mayor of the Palace. By a curious parallelism of destiny, the
   Shogunate itself more than once showed signs of fading away
   from substance into shadow. Yoritomo's descendants did not
   prove worthy of him, and for more than a century (A. D.
   1205-1333) the real authority was wielded by the so-called
   'Regents' of the Hojo family. … Their rule was made
   memorable by the repulse of the Mongol fleet sent by Kublai
   Khan with the purpose of adding Japan to his gigantic
   dominions. This was at the end of the 13th century, since
   which time Japan has never been attacked from without. During
   the 14th century, even the dowager-like calm of the Court of
   Kyoto was broken by internecine strife. Two branches of the
   Imperial house, supported each by different feudal chiefs,
   disputed the crown. One was called the Hokucho, or 'Northern
   Court,' the other the Nancho, or 'Southern Court.' After
   lasting some sixty years, this contest terminated in A. D.
   1392 by the triumph of the Northern dynasty, whose cause the
   powerful Ashikaga family had espoused. From 1338 to 1565, the
   Ashikagas ruled Japan as Shoguns. … Meanwhile Japan had been
   discovered by the Portuguese (A. D. 1542); and the imprudent
   conduct of the Portuguese and Spanish friars (bateren, as they
   were called—a corruption of the word padre) made of the
   Christian religion an additional source of discord. Japan fell
   into utter anarchy. Each baron in his fastness was a law unto
   himself. Then, in the latter half of the 16th century, there
   arose successively three great men—Ota Nobunaga, the Taiko
   Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. The first of these conceived
   the idea of centralising all the authority of the state in a
   single person; the second, Hideyoshi, who has been called the
   Napoleon of Japan, actually put the idea into practice, and
   joined the conquest of Korea (A. D. 1592-1598) to his domestic
   triumphs. Death overtook him in 1598, while he was revolving
   no less a scheme than the conquest of China. Ieyasu, setting
   Hideyoshi's youthful son aside, stepped into the vacant place.
   An able general, unsurpassed as a diplomat and administrator,
   he first quelled all the turbulent barons, then bestowed a
   considerable portion of their lands on his own kinsmen and
   dependents, and either broke or balanced, by a judicious
   distribution of other fiefs over different provinces of the
   Empire, the might of those greater feudal lords, such as
   Satsuma and Choshu, whom it was impossible to put altogether
   out of the way. The Court of Kyoto was treated by him
   respectfully, and investiture as Shogun for himself and his
   heirs duly obtained from the Mikado. In order further to break
   the might of the daimyos, Ieyasu compelled them to live at
   Yedo, which he had chosen for his capital in 1590, during six
   months of the year, and to leave their wives and families
   there as hostages during the other half. What Ieyasu sketched
   out, the third Shogun of his line, Iemitsu, perfected. From
   that time forward, 'Old Japan,' as we know it from the Dutch
   accounts, from art, from the stage, was crystallised for two
   hundred and fifty years. … Unchangeable to the outward eye
   of contemporaries, Japan had not passed a hundred years under
   the Tokugawa régime before the seeds of the disease which
   finally killed that regime were sown. Strangely enough, the
   instrument of destruction was historical research. Ieyasu
   himself had been a great patron of literature. His grandson,
   the second Prince of Mito, inherited his taste. Under the
   auspices of this Japanese Maecenas, a school of literati arose
   to whom the antiquities of their country were all in
   all—Japanese poetry and romance as against the Chinese
   Classics; the native religion, Shinto, as against the foreign
   religion, Buddhism; hence, by an inevitable extension, the
   ancient legitimate dynasty of the Mikados, as against the
   upstart Shoguns. … When Commodore Perry came with his big
   guns (A. D. 1853-4), he found a government already tottering
   to its fall, many who cared little for the Mikado's abstract
   rights, caring a great deal for the chance of aggrandising
   their own families at the Shogun's expense. The Shogun yielded
   to the demands of Perry and of the representatives of the
   other foreign powers—England, France, Russia—who followed in
   Perry's train, and consented to open Yokohama, Hakodate, and
   certain other ports to foreign trade and residence (1857-9).
   He even sent embassies to the United States and to Europe in
   1860 and 1861. The knowledge of the outer world possessed by
   the Court of Yedo, though not extensive, was sufficient to
   assure the Shogun and his advisers that it was vain to refuse
   what the Western powers claimed. The Court of Kyoto had had no
   means of acquiring even this modicum of worldly wisdom.
   According to its view, Japan, 'the land of the gods,' should
   never be polluted by outsiders, the ports should be closed
   again, and the 'barbarians' expelled at any hazard. What
   specially tended to complicate matters at this crisis was the
   independent action of certain daimyos. One of them, the Prince
   of Choshu, acting, as is believed, under secret instructions
   from the Court of Kyoto, fired on ships belonging to Great
   Britain, France, Holland, and the United States—this, too, at
   the very moment (1863) when the Shogun's government … was
   doing its utmost to effect by diplomacy the departure of the
   foreigners whom it had been driven to admit a few years before.
{1875}
   The consequence of this act was what is called 'the
   Shimonoseki Affair,' namely, the bombardment of Shimonoseki,
   Choshu's chief sea-port, by the combined fleets of the powers
   that had been insulted, and the exaction of an indemnity of
   $3,000,000. Though doubtless no feather, this broke the
   Shogunate's back. The Shogun Iemochi attempted to punish
   Choshu for the humiliation which he had brought on Japan, but
   failed, was himself defeated by the latter's troops, and died.
   Hitotsubashi, the last of his line, succeeded him. But the
   Court of Kyoto, prompted by the great daimyos of Choshu and
   Satsuma, suddenly decided on the abolition of the Shogunate.
   The Shogun submitted to the decree, and those of his followers
   who did not were routed—first at Fushimi near Kyoto (17th
   January, 1868), then at Ueno in Yedo (4th July, 1868), then in
   Aizu (6th November, 1868), and lastly at Hakodate (27th June,
   1869), where some of them had endeavoured to set up an
   independent republic. The government of the country was
   reorganised during 1867-8, nominally on the basis of a pure
   absolutism, with the Mikado as sole wielder of all authority
   both legislative and executive. Thus the literary party had
   triumphed. All their dreams were realised. They were
   henceforth to have Japan for the Japanese. … From this dream
   they were soon roughly wakened. The shrewd clansmen of Satsuma
   find Choshu, who had humoured the ignorance of the Court and
   the fads of the scholars only as long as their common enemy,
   the Shogunate, remained in existence, now turned round, and
   declared in favour, not merely of foreign intercourse, but of
   the Europeanisation of their own country. History has never
   witnessed a more sudden 'volte-face.' History has never
   witnessed a wiser one."

      _B. H. Chamberlain,
      Things Japanese,
      pages 143-160._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. O. Adams,
      History of Japan._

      _Sir E. J. Reed,
      Japan,
      volume 1, chapters 2-16_.

      _W. E. Griffis,
      The Mikado's Empire,
      book 1._

      _R. Hildreth,
      Japan, as it was and is._

JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.
   Jesuit Missions.
   The Century of Christianity.
   Its introduction and extirpation

   Francis Xavier, "the Apostle of the Indies, was both the
   leader and director of a widely spread missionary movement,
   conducted by a rapidly increasing staff, not only of Jesuits,
   but also of priests and missionaries of other orders, as well
   as of native preachers and catechists. Xavier reserved for
   himself the arduous task of travelling to regions as yet
   unvisited by any preachers of Christianity; and his bold and
   impatient imagination was carried away by the idea of bearing
   the Cross to the countries of the farthest East. The islands
   of Japan, already known to Europe through the travels of Marco
   Polo, had been reached by the Portuguese only eight years
   before, namely, in 1541, and Xavier, while at Malacca, had
   conversed with navigators and traders who had visited that
   remote coast. A Japanese, named Angero (Hansiro), pursued for
   homicide, had fled to Malacca in a Portuguese ship. He
   professed a real or feigned desire to be baptized, and was
   presented to Xavier at Malacca, who sent him to Goa. There he
   learned Portuguese quickly, and was baptized under the name of
   Paul of the Holy Faith. … Having carefully arranged the
   affairs of the Seminary of the Holy Faith at Goa and the
   entire machinery of the mission, Francis Xavier took ship for
   Malacca on the 14th April, 1549. On the 24th of June he sailed
   for Japan, along with Angero and his two companions, in a
   Chinese junk belonging to a famous pirate, an ally of the
   Portuguese, who left in their hands hostages for the safety of
   the apostle on the voyage. After a dangerous voyage they
   reached Kagosima, the native town of Angero, under whose
   auspices Xavier was well received by the governor,
   magistrates, and other distinguished people. The apostle was
   unable to commence his mission at once, though, according to
   his biographers, he possessed the gift of tongues. 'We are
   here,' he writes, 'like so many statues. They speak to us, and
   make signs to us, and we remain mute. We have again become
   children, and all our present occupation is to learn the
   elements of the Japanese grammar.' His first impressions of
   Japan were very favourable. … Xavier left Japan on the 20th
   November, 1551, after a stay of two years and four months. In
   his controversies with the Japanese, Xavier had been
   continually met with the objection—how could the Scripture
   history be true when it had escaped the notice of the learned
   men of China? It was Chinese sages who had taught philosophy
   and history to the Japanese, and Chinese missionaries who had
   converted them to Buddhism. To China, then, would he go to
   strike a blow at the root of that mighty superstition.
   Accordingly he sailed from Goa about the middle of April,
   1552. … Being a prey to continual anxiety to reach the new
   scene of his labours, Xavier fell ill, apparently of remittent
   fever, and died on the 2nd of December, 1552. … The result
   of Xavier's labours was the formation of a mission which, from
   Goa as a centre, radiated over much of the coast of Asia from
   Ormuz to Japan. … The two missionaries, whom Xavier had left
   at Japan, were soon after joined by three others: and in 1556
   they were visited by the Provincial of the Order in the
   Indies, Melchior Nunez, who paid much attention to the
   Japanese mission and selected for it the best missionaries, as
   Xavier had recommended. … The Jesuits attached themselves to
   the fortunes of the King of Bungo, a restless and ambitious
   prince, who in the end added four little kingdoms to his own,
   and thus became master of a large part of the island of
   Kiusiu. In his dominions Christianity made such progress that
   the number of converts began to be counted by thousands. …
   The missionaries perseveringly sought to spread their religion
   by preaching, public discussion, the circulation of
   controversial writings, the instruction of the youth, the
   casting out of devils, the performance of those mystery plays
   so common in that age, by the institution of 'confréries' like
   those of Avignon, and, above all, by the well-timed
   administration of alms. Nor need we be surprised to learn that
   their first converts were principally the blind, the infirm,
   and old men one foot in the grave. There are, however, many
   proofs in their letters that they were able both to attract
   proselytes of a better class and to inspire them with an
   enthusiasm which promised well for the growth of the mission.
   In those early days the example of Xavier was still fresh; and
   his immediate successors seem to have inherited his energetic
   and self-denying disposition, though none of them could equal
   the great mental and moral qualities of the Apostle of the
   Indies. They kept at the same time a watchful eye upon the
   political events that were going on around them, and soon
   began to bear a part in them. The hostility between them and
   the Bonzes became more and more bitter."

      _The Hundred Years of Christianity in Japan
      (Quarterly Review, April, 1871)._

{1876}

   "In several of the provinces of Kyushu the princes had become
   converts and had freely used their influence, and sometimes
   their authority, to extend Christianity among their subjects.
   In Kyoto and Yamaguchi, in Osaka and Sakai, as well as in
   Kyusbu, the Jesuit fathers had founded flourishing churches
   and exerted a wide influence. They had established colleges
   where the candidates for the church could be educated and
   trained. They had organized hospitals and asylums at Nagasaki
   and elsewhere, where those needing aid could be received and
   treated. It is true hat the progress of the work had met with
   a severe setback in A. D. 1587, when Taiko Sam a issued an
   edict expelling all foreign religious teachers from Japan. In
   pursuance of this edict nine foreigners who had evaded
   expulsion were burnt at Nagasaki. The reason for this decisive
   action on the part of Taiko Sama is usually attributed to the
   suspicion which had been awakened in him by the loose and
   unguarded talk of a Portuguese sea captain. But other causes
   undoubtedly contributed to produce in him this intolerant
   frame of mind. … In several of the provinces of Japan where
   the Jesuits had attained the ascendancy, the most forcible
   measures had been taken by the Christian princes to compel all
   their subjects to follow their own example and adopt the
   Christian faith. Takeyama, whom the Jesuit fathers designate
   as Justo Ucondono, carried out in his territory at Akashi a
   system of bitter persecution. He gave his subjects the option
   of becoming Christians or leaving his territory. Konishi
   Yukinaga, who received part of the province of Higo as his
   fief after the Korean war, enforced with great persistency the
   acceptance of the Christian faith, and robbed the Buddhist
   priests of their temples and their lands. The princes of Omura
   and Arima, and to a certain extent the princes of Bungo,
   followed the advice of the Jesuit fathers in using their
   authority to advance the cause of Christianity. The fathers
   could scarcely complain of having the system of intolerance
   practised upon them, which, when circumstances were favorable,
   they had advised to be applied to their opponents. … During
   the first years of Ieyasu's supremacy the Christians were not
   disturbed. … He issued in 1606 what may be called a warning
   proclamation, announcing that he had learned with pain that,
   contrary to Taiko Sama's edict, many had embraced the
   Christian religion. He warned all officers of his court to see
   that the edict was strictly enforced, He declared that it was
   for the good of the state that none should embrace the new
   doctrine; and that such as had already done so must change
   immediately. … In the meantime both the English and Dutch
   had appeared on the scene. … Their object was solely trade,
   and as the Portuguese monopoly hitherto had been mainly
   secured by the Jesuit fathers, it was natural for the
   new-comers to represent the motive of these fathers in an
   unfavorable and suspicious light. 'Indeed,' as Hildreth says,
   'they had only to confirm the truth of what the Portuguese and
   Spanish said of each other to excite in the minds of the
   Japanese rulers the gravest distrust as to the designs of the
   priests of both nations.' Whether it is true as charged that
   the minds of the Japanese rulers had been poisoned against the
   Jesuit fathers by misrepresentation and falsehood, it may be
   impossible to determine definitely; but it is fair to infer
   that the cruel and intolerant policy of the Spanish and
   Portuguese would be fully set forth and the danger to the
   Japanese empire from the machinations of the foreign religious
   teachers held up in the worst light. … Ieyasu, evidently
   having made up his mind that for the safety of the empire
   Christianity must be extirpated, in 1614 issued an edict that
   the members of all religious orders, whether European or
   Japanese, should be sent out of the country: that the churches
   which had been erected in various localities should be pulled
   down, and that the native adherents of the faith should be
   compelled to renounce it. In part execution of this edict all
   the members of the Society of Jesus, native and foreign, were
   ordered to be sent to Nagasaki. Native Christians were sent to
   Tsugaru, the northern extremity of the Main island. … In
   accordance with this edict, as many as 300 persons are said to
   have been shipped from Japan October 25, 1614. All the
   resident Jesuits were included in this number, excepting
   eighteen fathers and nine brothers, who concealed themselves
   and thus escaped the search. Following his deportation of
   converts the most persistent efforts continued to be made to
   force the native Christians to renounce their faith. The
   accounts given, both by the foreign and by the Japanese
   writers, of the persecutions which now broke upon the heads of
   the Christians are beyond description horrible. … Rewards
   were offered for information involving Christians of every
   position and rank, even of parents against their children and
   of children against their parents. … The persecution began
   in its worst form about 1616. This was the year in which
   Ieyasu died, but his son and successor carried out the
   terrible programme with heartless thoroughness. It has never
   been surpassed for cruelty and brutality on the part of the
   persecutors, or for courage and constancy on the part of those
   who suffered. … Mr. Gubbins … says: 'We read of Christians
   being executed in a barbarous manner in sight of each other,
   of their being hurled from the tops of precipices, of their
   being buried alive, of their being torn asunder by oxen, of
   their being tied up in rice-bags, which were heaped up
   together, and of the pile thus formed being set on fire.
   Others were tortured before death by the insertion of sharp
   spikes under the nails of their hands and feet, while some
   poor wretches by a refinement of horrid cruelty were shut up
   in cages and there left to starve with food before their eyes.
   Let it not be supposed that we have drawn on the Jesuit
   accounts solely for this information. An examination of the
   Japanese records will show that the case is not overstated.'"

      _D. Murray,
      Story of Japan,
      chapter 11._

   "The persecutions went on, the discovery of Christians
   occasionally occurring for several years, but in 1686 'the few
   remaining had learnt how to conceal their belief and the
   practice of their religion so well, that the Council issued a
   circular to the chief Daimios of the south and west, stating
   that none of the Kirishitan sect had been discovered of late
   years, owing perhaps to laziness on the part of those whose
   duty it was to search for them, and enjoining vigilance'
   (Satow). Traces of the Christian religion and people lingered
   in the country down to our own time."

      _Sir E. J. Reed,
      Japan,
      page 301._

{1877}

JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.
   Opening the ports to foreigners.
   The treaty with the United States and the other treaties which
   followed.

   "It is estimated that about the middle of the present century,
   American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars
   was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and
   China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French
   enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the
   service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the
   great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked
   out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the
   secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There
   were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to
   the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one
   hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on
   the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the
   increasing trade with China, the development of steam
   navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter,
   the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America,
   the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise
   of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of
   foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of
   the British victory in China, the progress of European
   settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western
   science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from
   the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of
   exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for
   Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About
   this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs
   who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain
   Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the
   attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the
   government that it should take advantage of this incident to
   open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to
   manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal
   was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then
   Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend.
   … Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties,
   and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the
   Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for
   some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at
   his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be
   accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the
   undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew
   Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of
   sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore
   Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an
   immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an
   expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was
   invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The
   East India and China Seas and Japan were the official
   designation of the field of service, but the real object in
   view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The
   public announcement of the resolution was followed by
   applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission
   to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused
   on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by
   the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from
   Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the
   Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. …
   The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way,
   reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the
   afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the
   Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the
   evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the
   black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay,
   than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of
   rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers
   moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in
   Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond
   description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all
   directions were seen mothers flying with children in their
   arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an
   immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated
   from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. …
   As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and
   boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A
   document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a
   warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day
   was spent in informal conference between the local officials
   of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was
   Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and
   exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do.
   He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest
   dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came
   on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He
   declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be
   held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron
   would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for
   further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for
   another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the
   Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both
   sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and
   afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the
   12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and
   insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki,
   where the President's letter would be duly received through
   the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to
   do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the
   letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of
   Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the
   commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on
   the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of
   the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the
   original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor,
   enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was
   delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed
   by the Shogun. …
{1878}
   Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in
   China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that
   country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the
   diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he
   would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the
   Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China.
   The American merchants had large interests at stake
   there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said,
   to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that
   the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai,
   contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any
   advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended,
   and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay
   of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place
   where the conference had been held at the previous visit was
   out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry
   expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request
   impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some
   hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a
   suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly
   erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of
   May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting
   his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun
   to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which
   was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of
   friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle
   and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and
   equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to
   banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the
   31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which
   is here presented:

   1. Peace and friendship.
   2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,
   and necessary provisions to be supplied them.
   3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be
   refunded.
   4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to
   just laws.
   5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to
   restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.
   6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects
   the welfare of either party.
   7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.
   8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through
   Japanese officers only.
   9. Most-favored nation clause.
   10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,
   except when forced by stress of weather.
   11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.
   12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

   His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan
   and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854.
   … No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of
   peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was
   in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral
   Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same
   privileges be granted his country as were allowed the
   Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James
   Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify
   the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese
   waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British
   convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858,
   by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January
   26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France,
   October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs
   Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed
   the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium,
   Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii,
   China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a
   treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

      _Inazo (Ota) Nitobe,
      The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. L. Hawks,
      Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry._

      _W. E. Griffis,
      Matthew Calbraith Perry,
      chapters 27-33._

JAPAN: A. D. 1869-1890.
   Constitutional development.

   "In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir
   Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of
   Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the
   retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience
   of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote
   themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.'
   … The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to
   sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to
   obtain the assistance of the country in the work of
   legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the
   government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho,
   like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an
   experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only
   time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a
   quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the
   record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or
   journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year
   of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its
   dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a
   greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending
   before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism.
   … The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the
   Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted
   memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan
   during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now
   the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor
   himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed,
   a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial
   Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to
   illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The
   place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which
   we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our
   own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions
   and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good
   measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for
   taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial
   orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories
   of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the
   military laws down to the rules for uniform and the
   construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor;
   let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be
   referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of
   Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of
   the west.
{1879}
   But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been
   Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the
   most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to
   the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of
   their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan
   for over eight centuries was abolished by the following
   laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are
   abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.'
   … While the government at home was thus tearing down the old
   framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was
   gathering materials for the new. This was significant,
   inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their
   staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a
   year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their
   social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873,
   Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the
   government praying for the establishment of a representative
   assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In
   July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed
   a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form
   of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the
   opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change
   necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were
   developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in
   1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of
   the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for
   popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through
   representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many
   other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the
   direction of establishing a national assembly. But the
   government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together
   hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and
   its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration
   of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious
   dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the
   government established first local assemblies. Certainly this
   was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been
   good training schools for popular government, but also proved
   reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors
   (males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and
   payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the
   names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the
   voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these
   local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and
   popular government was thus widened more and more by the
   institution of local government. The popular tide raised by
   these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year.
   New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of
   thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so
   high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer.
   His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people,
   graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the
   famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it
   in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of
   government. … It was with this object in view that in the
   eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in
   the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of
   local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we
   shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a
   parliament, in order to carry into full effect the
   determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful
   subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all
   necessary preparations to that end.'"

      _T. Iyenaga,
      The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9)._

      See CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

   Organization of National Education.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: ASIA.

   ----------JAPAN: End----------

JAQUELINE OF HOLLAND AND HAINAULT,
   The Despoiling of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

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

JARL.

      See EARL; and ETHEL.

JARNAC, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

JASPER, Sergeant, The exploit of.

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


JASSY, Treaty of (1792).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

JATTS OR JAUTS.

      See GYPSIES.

JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.
   Taken from the Dutch by the English.
   Restored to Holland.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

JAVAN.

   The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old
   Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,
   which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the
   Assyrian monuments."

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

JAXARTES, The.

   The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,
   which empties into the Sea of Aral.

JAY, John,
   In the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER); and NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

   In diplomatic service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

   And the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

   Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

   And the second Treaty with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

   During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain
   "Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated,
   having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and
   consequently almost wholly without check, developed a
   successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation.
   Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery
   outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into
   the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the
   name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

      _L. W. Spring,
      Kansas, page 240._

   "The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from
   Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as
   soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual
   accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs'
   into Missouri."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, page 370._

JAYME.

      See JAMES.

{1880}

JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

      See LIMIGANTES.

JEAN.

      See JOHN.

JEANNE I., Queen of Navarre, A. D. 1274-1305.

   Jeanne II., Queen of Navarre, 1328-1349.

   Jeanne D'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and the Reformation in
   France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

JEBUSITES, The.

   The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient
   Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David
   took the place by storm and made it the capital of his
   kingdom.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3, section 1 (volume 3)._

      See JERUSALEM.

JECKER CLAIMS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

JEFFERSON, Thomas:
   Authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

   In the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1793.

   Leadership of the Anti-Federalist or Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; and 1798.

   Presidential administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800, to 1806-1807.

JEFFERSON, Provisional Territory of.

      See COLORADO: A. D.1806-1876.

JEFFREYS, and the "Bloody Assizes."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.

JEHAD.

      See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

JELLALABAD, Defense of (1842).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

JEM, OR DJEM, Prince, The story of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JEMAPPES, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

JEMMINGEN, Battle of (1568).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

JENA, Battle of.

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

JENGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

JENKINS' EAR, The War of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

JENKINS' FERRY, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS—MISSOURI).

JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

JERBA, OR GELVES, The disaster at.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

JERSEY AND GUERNSEY, The Isles of.

   "Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of
   the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell
   away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans
   while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great
   Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself
   Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least,
   sounds better than that of Empress of India."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Practical Bearings of General European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. T. Ansted and R. G. Latham,
      The Channel Islands._

JERSEY PRISON SHIP, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
      PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

JERSEYS, The.
   East and West New Jersey.

      See NEW JERSEY.

   ----------JERUSALEM: Start----------

JERUSALEM:
   Early history.

   "The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously
   called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion,
   the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides
   by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and
   south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the
   north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less
   elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon
   Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by
   the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a
   wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of
   Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges
   was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or
   Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was
   anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and
   Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was
   safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the
   north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and
   fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct
   cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the
   taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity
   is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy
   mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name
   Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the
   opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of
   the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'
   into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the
   quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in
   the very heart of the city when the different parts were
   united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first
   notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of
   Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and
   carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,
   collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and
   rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which
   is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of
   the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the
   Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the
   eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In
   Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'
   where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether
   Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very
   mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left
   to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was
   written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for
   we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at
   Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites
   from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that
   very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah
   fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on
   fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to
   apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,
   as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.
   The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the
   Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that
   Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the
   Israelites."

      _T. Lewin,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 1._

{1881}

JERUSALEM:
   Conquest and occupation by David.

   "David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the
   tribe of Judah alone.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

   He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all
   Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in
   Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation
   oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an
   arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign
   their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with
   paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king
   could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military
   proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in
   detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,
   probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an
   army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it
   is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it
   sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new
   power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been
   sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites
   in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no
   longer a suitable place for the centre of David's
   administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and
   Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a
   ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to
   the eastern districts; and although by no means a central
   position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this
   Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …
   The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to
   David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be
   explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to
   defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of
   displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed
   Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely
   assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in
   arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first
   scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made
   chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His
   impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly
   mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of
   the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;
   in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is
   it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of
   the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide
   for the security of his intended capital, by suitable
   fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and
   separated from it by a slighter depression which we have
   named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In
   ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;
   for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to
   include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion
   separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of
   David."

      _F. W. Newman,
      A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

   "The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which
   must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now
   stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there
   to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress
   of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring
   lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the
   Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,
   lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and
   played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David
   rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all
   the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city
   of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 1, B._

JERUSALEM:
   Early sieges.

   Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which
   remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David
   reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the
   object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered
   at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with
   no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of
   Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign
   of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom
   of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was
   besieged without success by the tartan or general of
   Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In
   B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction
   by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief
   inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the
   return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;
   but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of
   Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and
   abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its
   walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by
   Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city
   was likewise burned.

      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews._

      See, also, JEWS.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.
   Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.

      See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.
   Siege and capture by Pompeius.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.
   Surrendered to the Parthians.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.
   Siege by Herod and the Romans.

      See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.
   Rise of the Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.

      See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
      THE GREAT REVOLT.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.
   Rebuilt by Hadrian.
   Change of name.
   The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
   Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.

   In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while
   Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at
   Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the
   Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,
   Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took
   the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the
   ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,
   summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against
   the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or
   exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to
   his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and
   Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after
   a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave
   it over to plunder and rapine.
{1882}
   The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of
   Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the
   Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the
   greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries
   were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a
   massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief
   part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many
   as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were
   slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them
   was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive
   into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found
   by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the
   same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved
   with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of
   Chosroës."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 24._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.
   Surrender to the Moslems.

   In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater
   part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of
   vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of
   Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,
   Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is
   holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his
   head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu
   Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies
   lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet
   Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that
   we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we
   raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,
   as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further
   hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on
   condition that the Caliph would come in person to take
   possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal
   being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make
   the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,
   he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,
   with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,
   much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn
   up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for
   the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to
   build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church
   doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress
   permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should
   only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on
   the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The
   Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor
   speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make
   proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.
   They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,
   slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but
   should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use
   the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor
   salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem
   surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and
   remain standing until he should be seated. They should
   entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They
   should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in
   riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in
   Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender
   on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an
   assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use
   of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and His Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 18._

      See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.
   In the Moslem civil wars.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.
   Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.
   Taken by the Seljuk Turks.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.
   Visit of Peter the Hermit.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.
   The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

   The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.
   1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem
   in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000
   fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,
   children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately
   before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans
   deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians
   in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.
   It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders
   were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons
   of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling
   their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their
   wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their
   ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,
   the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the
   Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was
   not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond
   any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their
   men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were
   repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a
   regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the
   extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much
   suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a
   month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the
   city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was
   taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians
   ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first
   they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all
   alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage
   was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,
   and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover
   their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to
   their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so
   burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how
   the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and
   how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the
   knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here
   upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole
   number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to
   forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …
{1883}
   Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more
   enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by
   Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out
   the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one
   thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they
   proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these
   Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.
   They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of
   the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords
   reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy
   Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers
   and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those
   who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It
   was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom
   Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.
   Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who
   capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to
   kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every
   Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,
   and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old
   inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true
   Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the
   siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful
   procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave
   themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first
   Crusade was finished."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 4._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.
   The Founding of the Latin kingdom.

   Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had
   been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of
   a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh
   the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had
   retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to
   regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin
   was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two
   Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—
   preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful
   competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of
   Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and
   the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed
   Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions
   of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of
   danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been
   crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and
   ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of
   Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender
   and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single
   year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in
   the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach
   of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to
   prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of
   Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed
   the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the
   valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long
   farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the
   Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new
   king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing
   companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,
   300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of
   Palestine."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58._

   Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was
   succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,
   the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship
   to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the
   more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,
   had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and
   subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a
   domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest
   in his own grasping qualities and soon established the
   kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen
   years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,
   Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the
   principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in
   1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,
   who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's
   daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their
   greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The
   entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the
   confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,
   in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions
   extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains
   of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east
   as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert
   formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four
   states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of
   Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of
   Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the
   king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by
   his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.
   The constitution of the kingdom.

   "Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two
   immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal
   merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary
   succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the
   foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;
   and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal
   hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the
   kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance
   extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great
   officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the
   marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief
   baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had
   the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,
   in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the
   great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first
   great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and
   the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was
   the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships
   of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the
   county of Tripoli. …
{1884}
   But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the
   number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared
   with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three
   first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred
   knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred
   knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and
   eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was
   the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,
   Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial
   communities of every part of the kingdom provided five
   thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58.

      See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.
   The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
   Decline and fall of the kingdom.
   The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

   King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,
   who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother
   associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign
   of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of
   Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the
   miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing
   towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the
   Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and
   in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly
   closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of
   wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst
   such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early
   manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition
   was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was
   elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his
   reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with
   those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the
   side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against
   another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere
   puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand
   vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the
   sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter
   embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand
   towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,
   a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore
   Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the
   Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history
   as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled
   with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which
   proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin
   king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition
   to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of
   five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and
   but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin
   was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,
   Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand
   vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite
   caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a
   young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He
   was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to
   make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was
   stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took
   the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,
   summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally
   the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,
   A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was
   able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to
   become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a
   large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins
   from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet
   once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had
   died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was
   an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the
   only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of
   serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised
   creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy
   Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful
   kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his
   Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,
   A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally
   in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called
   by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians
   were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was
   taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true
   cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into
   Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,
   Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at
   his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants
   permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no
   wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When
   his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with
   his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded
   to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a
   short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to
   him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which
   might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The
   sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were
   ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom
   was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were
   permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights
   of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and
   his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone
   Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the
   Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem
   was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin
   and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of
   Lusignan.

      _G. W. Cox,
      The Crusades,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapters 12-16._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 7._

      _Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.
   Attempted recovery.
   The Third Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

{1885}

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.
   The succession of nominal kings.

   Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of
   King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his
   kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win
   his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by
   a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of
   Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the
   Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their
   consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury,
   and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to
   recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and
   her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded
   look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently,
   Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best
   part of what remained in the actual kingdom of
   Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the
   kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy,
   and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness,
   took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was
   decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and
   that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's
   children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this
   settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192,
   the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in
   such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of
   Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the
   crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But
   Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old
   Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of
   the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne,
   Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry
   enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of
   dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was
   killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow,
   Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history
   again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan,
   who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of
   Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and
   Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the
   daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young
   queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France,
   and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the
   worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French
   knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little
   following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to
   reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he
   strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling
   remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing
   except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria
   and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help,
   but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the
   head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the
   wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home
   with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to
   attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end.
   Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or
   Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans,
   Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and
   claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with
   the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine,
   with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and
   skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt
   (A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions,
   in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which
   he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and
   there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the
   priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple,
   shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick
   was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who
   wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the
   sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy
   in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and
   unreal as that of his predecessors had been.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapters 15 and 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      books 8-12._

      See, also,
      CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;
      and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.
   Sack and massacre by the Carismians.

   After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or
   Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,
   or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage
   conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,
   in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,
   Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among
   its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent
   history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the
   powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.
   "The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a
   league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the
   other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which
   at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,
   soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding
   defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes
   of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance
   with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored
   Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,
   but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a
   conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.
   The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who
   had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their
   new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,
   determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and
   sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to
   abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This
   proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,
   animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from
   the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient
   to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their
   march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the
   principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere
   accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the
   inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,
   and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not
   the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks
   of such a formidable enemy.
{1886}
   The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the
   guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There
   only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who
   could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their
   infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having
   destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their
   route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all
   they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to
   lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised
   the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the
   bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They
   persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that
   God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the
   city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious
   horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,
   returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of
   the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of
   blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop
   of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in
   the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot
   of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living
   to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the
   coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of
   Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the
   martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and
   Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and
   profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous
   wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the
   Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with
   those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave
   battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they
   suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.
   Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and
   Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,
   beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms
   sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,
   and history tells nothing more of the career of these last
   adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 13._


      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.
   The end of the Christian kingdom.
   The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."

   "Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the
   baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de
   Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from
   Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next
   heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and
   Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans
   of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale
   speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double
   pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of
   the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with
   Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only
   from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But
   the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally
   recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been
   celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state
   in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length
   the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king
   and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of
   the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem
   traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the
   Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to
   obtain redress for the first of these violations of
   international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and
   Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years'
   truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force;
   yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at
   length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last
   surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its
   dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its
   powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a
   repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre
   provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head
   of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered
   Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him,
   and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city,
   which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the
   capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge
   of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were
   strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society
   more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can
   scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a
   promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally
   disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying
   impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of
   independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than
   seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem,
   the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three
   military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian
   republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West,
   all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the
   venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched
   inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape,
   thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which
   set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was
   abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery
   of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the
   Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown
   and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple
   fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the
   Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been
   collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of
   thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works,
   described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was
   shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly
   Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The
   Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood
   their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven
   escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors
   pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who
   had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less
   by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient
   shipping.
{1887}
   By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the
   waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who
   survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless
   slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or
   liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of
   the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to
   Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the
   Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years,
   the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the
   enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of
   the Crusades."

      _Colonel G. Procter,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapter 5, section 5._

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 15 (volume 3)._

   Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family
   ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in
   1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house
   of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her
   rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia
   having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the
   family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus
   and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement;
   the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem
   since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see
   above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on
   to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the
   Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. …
   The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of
   Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There
   is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or
   three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I
   believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan,
   under the will of King James II."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the
      Study of Medieval and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 6._

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1299.
   The Templars once more in the city.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1516.
   Embraced in the Ottoman conquests of Sultan Selim.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1831.
   Taken by Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

   ----------JERUSALEM: End----------

JERUSALEM TALMUD, The.

      See TALMUD.

JESUATES, The.

   "The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly
   crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were
   founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The
   congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some
   of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they
   were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and
   practising pharmacy (1668)."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

   ----------JESUITS: Start--------

JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
   Founding of the Society of Jesus.
   System of its organization.
   Its principles and aims.

   "Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no
   longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to
   be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan
   was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which
   should better answer the required ends. The most important of
   them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving
   cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V.
   we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was
   on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French,
   that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish
   tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature.
   A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer
   existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact
   that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in
   hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The
   crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted
   by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain,
   Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all
   the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from
   the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the
   order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a
   Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which
   distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a
   gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic
   love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a
   glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even
   during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were
   striving together in his character, until the event took place
   which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he
   compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure
   that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual
   knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous
   romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation,
   what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the
   true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the
   newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of
   a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he
   chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations,
   made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his
   defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it
   was among his comrades there that he formed the first
   associations out of which the order was afterwards formed.
   Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's
   fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his
   impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new
   doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who
   was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there
   was work for such an association, for the object now in hand
   was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of
   Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the
   Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to
   Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders
   regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul
   III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540
   gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting
   Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to
   obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country,
   to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send
   them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.'
   It is from this time that the special history of the order
   begins.
{1888}
   During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of
   the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56).
   He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his
   predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he
   was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and
   systematic organization. The new order differed in several
   respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely
   corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish
   Church. … The construction of the new order was based and
   carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories
   of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each
   of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by
   them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and
   was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the
   opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The
   general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he
   communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all
   officials, issues orders as to the administration of the
   order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy
   which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was
   conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four
   vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the
   Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise
   this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according
   to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et
   cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. …
   Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to
   everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience,
   unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was
   but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation.
   It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad
   peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or
   less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the
   name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an
   elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum
   that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members
   of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and
   country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of
   poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of
   the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis.
   No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with
   the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command
   require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to
   door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of
   the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and
   bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On
   all these and many other points, the new order only laid
   greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among
   the rules of other orders, though in the universal
   demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into
   disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the
   manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and
   every aspect of life. Himself without home or country, and not
   holding the doctrines of any political party, the disciple of
   Jesus renounced everything which might alienate him among
   varying nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then
   he did not confine his labours to the pulpit and the
   confessional; he gained an influence over the rising
   generation by a systematic attention to education, which had
   been shamefully neglected by the other orders. He devoted
   himself to education from the national schools up to the
   academic chair, and by no means confined himself to the sphere
   of theology. This was a principle of immense importance. …
   It is a true saying, that 'he who gains the youth possesses
   the future'; and by devoting themselves to the education of
   youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church more surely
   than by any other scheme that could have been devised. What
   the schoolmasters were for the youth, the confessors were for
   those of riper years; what the clerical teachers were for the
   common people, the spiritual directors and confidants were for
   great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits aspired to a place at
   the side of the great, and at gaining the confidence of kings.
   It was not long before they could boast of astonishing
   success."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 20._

   "The Society, in 1556, only 16 years after its commencement,
   counted as many as twelve provinces, 100 houses, and upwards
   of 1,000 members, dispersed over the whole known world. Their
   two most conspicuous and important establishments were the
   Collegio Romano and the German College. They already were in
   possession of many chairs, and soon monopolised the right of
   teaching, which gave them a most overwhelming influence."

      _G. B. Nicolini,
      History of the Jesuits,
      page 90._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Loyola and Jesuitism in its Rudiments._

      S_. Rose,
      Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits._

      _T. Hughes,
      Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits._

      See, also, EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649.
   The early Jesuit Missionaries and their labors.

   "In 1542, Xavier landed at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese
   colony, on the western coast of Hindostan. He took lodgings at
   the hospital, and mingled with the poor. He associated also
   with the rich, and even played with them at cards, acting
   piously upon the motto of the order, 'Ad majorem Dei gloriam.'
   Having thus won good-will to himself, he went into the
   streets, with his hand-bell and crucifix, and, having rung the
   one, he held up the other, exhorting the multitudes to accept
   that religion of which it was the emblem. His great facility
   in acquiring foreign languages helped him much. He visited
   several times the pearl-fisheries on the Malabar coast,
   remaining at one time thirteen months, and planting forty-five
   churches. Cape Comorin, Travancore, Meliapore, the Moluccas,
   Malacca, and other ports of India, and finally the distant
   island of Japan—where Christianity was [accepted—see JAPAN:
   A. D. 1540-1686] … —received his successive visits. Leaving
   two Jesuits on the island, he returned to settle some matters
   at Goa, which done, he sailed for China, but died at the
   island of Sancian, a few leagues from the city of Canton, in
   1552—ten years only after his arrival in India. He had in
   this time established an inquisition and a college at Goa.
   Numbers of the society, whom he had wisely distributed, had
   been sent to his aid; and the Christians in India were
   numbered by hundreds of thousands before the death of this
   'Apostle of the Indies.' It has even been said, that he was
   the means of converting more persons in Asia than the church
   had lost by the Reformation in Europe.
{1889}
   The empire of China, which Xavier was not allowed to enter,
   was visited, half a century later, by the Jesuit Matthew
   Ricci, who introduced his religion by means of his great skill
   in science and art, especially mathematics and drawing [see
   CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882]. He assumed the garb of a mandarin
   —associated with the higher classes—dined with the
   Emperor—allowed those who received Christianity to retain any
   rites of their own religion to which they were attached—and
   died in 1610, bequeathing and recommending his policy to
   others. This plan of accommodation was far more elaborately
   carried out by Robert Nobili, who went to Madura, in southern
   Hindostan, as a missionary of the order in 1606. He had
   observed the obstacle which caste threw in the way of
   missionary labor, and resolved to remove it. He presented
   himself as a foreign Brahmin, and attached himself to that
   class. They had a tradition, that there once had been four
   roads to truth in India, one of which they had lost. This he
   professed to restore. He did no violence to their existing
   ideas or institutions, but simply gave them other
   interpretations, and in three years he had seventy converted
   Brahmins about him. From this time he went on gathering crowds
   of converts, soon numbering 150,000. This facile policy,
   however, attracted the notice of the other religious orders,
   was loudly complained of at Rome, and, after almost an entire
   century of agitation, was condemned in 1704 by a special
   legation, appointed by Clement XI. to inquire into the matter
   of complaint. … The attention of the society was early
   directed to our own continent, and its missions everywhere
   anticipated the settlements. The most remarkable missions were
   in South America. Missionaries had been scattered over the
   whole continent, everywhere making converts, but doing nothing
   for the progress of the order. Aquaviva was general. This
   shrewd man saw the disadvantage of the policy, and at once
   applied the remedy. He directed, that, leaving only so many
   missionaries scattered over the continent as should be
   absolutely necessary, the main force should be concentrated
   upon a point. Paraguay was chosen. The missionaries formed
   what were called reductions—that is, villages into which the
   Indians were collected from their roving life, taught the
   ruder arts of civilization, and some of the rites and duties
   of the Christian religion. These villages were regularly laid
   out with streets, running each way from a public square,
   having a Church, work-shops and dwellings. Each family had a
   small piece of land assigned for cultivation, and all were
   reduced to the most systematic habits of industry and good
   order. … The men were trained to arms, and all the elements
   of an independent empire were fast coming into being. In 1632,
   thirty years after the starting of this system, Paraguay had
   twenty reductions, averaging 1,000 families each, which at a
   moderate estimate, would give a population of 100,000, and
   they still went on prospering until three times this number
   are, by some, said to have been reached. The Jesuits started,
   in California, in 1642, the same system, which they fully
   entered upon in 1679. This, next to Paraguay, became their
   most successful mission."

      _A Historical Sketch of the Jesuits
      (Putnam's Magazine, September, 1856)._

   In 1632 the Jesuits entered on their mission work in Canada,
   or New France, where they supplanted the Récollet friars. "In
   1640 Montreal, the site of which had been already indicated by
   Champlain in 1611, was founded, that there might be a nearer
   rendezvous than Quebec for the converted Indians. At its
   occupation a solemn mass was celebrated under a tent, and in
   France itself the following February a general supplication
   was offered up that the Queen of Angels would take the Island
   of Montreal under her protection. In the August of this year a
   general meeting of French settlers and Indians took place at
   Montreal, and the festival of the Assumption was solemnised at
   the island. The new crusading spirit took full possession of
   the enthusiastic French people, and the niece of Cardinal
   Richelieu founded a hospital for the natives between the
   Kennebec and Lake Superior, to which young and nobly-born
   hospital nuns from Dieppe offered their services. Plans were
   made for establishing mission posts, not only on the north
   amongst the Algonkins, but to the south of Luke Huron, in
   Michigan and at Green Bay, and so on as far as the regions to
   the west. The maps of the Jesuits prove that before 1660 they
   had traced the waters of Lake Erie and Lake Superior and had
   seen Lake Michigan. The Huron mission embraced principally the
   country lying between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, building
   its stations on the rivers and shores. But the French
   missionaries, however much they might desire it, could not
   keep outside the intertribal strifes of the natives around
   them. Succeeding to Champlain's policy, they continued to aid
   the Algonkins and Hurons against their inveterate enemies the
   Iroquois. The Iroquois retaliated by the most horrible cruelty
   and revenge. There was no peace along the borders of this wild
   country, and missionaries and colonists carried their lives in
   their hands. In 1648 St. Joseph, a Huron mission town on the
   shores of Lake Simcoe, was burned down and destroyed by the
   Iroquois, and Père Daniel, the Jesuit leader, killed under
   circumstances of great atrocity. In 1649 St. Ignace, a station
   at the corner of Georgian Bay, was sacked, and there the pious
   Brebeuf met his end, after having suffered the most horrible
   tortures the Indians could invent. Brebeuf, after being hacked
   in the face and burnt all over the body with torches and
   red-hot iron, was scalped alive, and died after three hours'
   suffering. His companion, the gentle Gabriel Lallemand,
   endured terrible tortures for seventeen hours."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      chapter 6. _

   The Hurons were dispersed and their nation destroyed by these
   attacks of the Iroquois. "With the fall of the Hurons fell the
   best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and
   populous communities around them, had been the rude material
   from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire
   in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were
   uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to
   whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a
   common ruin. The land of promise was turned to a solitude and
   a desolation. There was still work in hand, it is true,—vast
   regions to explore, and countless heathens to snatch from
   perdition; but these, for the most part, were remote and
   scattered hordes, from whose conversion it was vain to look
   for the same solid and decisive results. In a measure, the
   occupation of the Jesuits was gone.
{1890}
   Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father
   Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the
   trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number,
   several soon fell victims to famine, hardship, and the
   Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission;
   political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,
   and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her
   civil and military annals."

      _F. Parkman,
      The Jesuits in North America,
      chapter 34._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.

JESUITS: A. D. 1558.
   Mission founded in Abyssinia.

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 15TH-19TH CENTURIES.

JESUITS: A. D. 1572-1603.
   Persecution in England under Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

JESUITS: A. D. 1573-1592.
   Change in the statutes of the Order on demands from Spain.

   "At the first establishment of the Order, the elder and
   already educated men, who had just entered it, were for the
   most part Spaniards; the members joining it from other nations
   were chiefly young men, whose characters had yet to be formed.
   It followed naturally that the government of the society was,
   for the first ten years, almost entirely in Spanish hands. The
   first general congregation was composed of twenty-five
   members, eighteen of whom were Spaniards. The first three
   generals belonged to the same nation. After the death of the
   third, Borgia, in the year 1573, it was once more a Spaniard,
   Polanco, who had the best prospect of election. It was however
   manifest that his elevation would not have been regarded
   favourably, even in Spain itself. There were many new converts
   in the society who were Christianized Jews. Polanco also
   belonged to this class, and it was not thought desirable that
   the supreme authority in a body so powerful, and so
   monarchically constituted, should be confided to such hands.
   Pope Gregory XIV., who had received certain intimations on
   this subject, considered a change to be expedient on other
   grounds also. When a deputation presented itself before him
   from the congregation assembled to elect their general,
   Gregory inquired how many votes were possessed by each nation;
   the reply showed that Spain held more than all the others put
   together. He then asked from which nation the generals of the
   order had hitherto been taken. He was told that there had been
   three, all Spaniards. 'It will be just, then,' replied
   Gregory, 'that for once you should choose one from among the
   other nations.' He even proposed a candidate for their
   election. The Jesuits opposed themselves for a moment to this
   suggestion, as a violation of their privileges; but concluded
   by electing the very man proposed by the pontiff. This was
   Eberhard Mercurianus. A material change was at once perceived,
   as the consequence of this choice. Mercurianus, a weak and
   irresolute man, resigned the government of affairs, first
   indeed to a Spaniard again, but afterwards to a Frenchman, his
   official admonitor; factions were formed, one expelling the
   other from the offices of importance, and the ruling powers of
   the Order now began to meet occasional resistance from its
   subordinate members. But a circumstance of much higher moment
   was, that on the next vacancy—in the year 1581—this office
   was conferred on Claudius Acquaviva, a Neapolitan, belonging
   to a house previously attached to the French party, a man of
   great energy, and only thirty-eight years old. The Spaniards
   then thought they perceived that their nation, by which the
   society had been founded and guided on its early path, was now
   to be forever excluded from the generalship. Thereupon they
   became discontented and refractory, and conceived the design
   of making themselves less dependent on Rome. … They first
   had recourse to the national spiritual authority of their own
   country—the Inquisition. … One of the discontented Jesuits,
   impelled, as he affirmed, by a scruple of conscience, accused
   his order of concealing, and even remitting, transgressions of
   the kind so reserved, when the criminal was one of their
   society. The Inquisition immediately caused the Provincial
   implicated, together with his most active associates, to be
   arrested. Other accusations being made in consequence of these
   arrests, the Inquisition commanded that the statutes of the
   order should be placed before it, and proceeded to make
   further seizures of parties accused. … The Inquisition was,
   however, competent to inflict a punishment on the criminal
   only: it could not prescribe changes in the regulations of the
   society. When the affair, therefore, had proceeded thus far,
   the discontented members applied to the king also, assailing
   him with long memorials, wherein they complained of the
   defects in their constitution. The character of this
   constitution had never been agreeable to Philip II.; he used
   to say that he could see through all the other orders, but
   that the order of Jesuits he could not understand. … He at
   once commanded Manrique, bishop of Carthagena, to subject the
   Order to a visitation, with particular reference to these
   points. … The character of Sixtus V. made it particularly
   easy for Acquaviva to excite the antipathies of that pontiff
   against the proceedings of the Spaniards. Pope Sixtus had
   formed the hope, as we know, of rendering Rome, more decidedly
   than it ever yet was, the metropolis of Christendom. Acquaviva
   assured him, that the object really laboured for in Spain was
   no other than increased independence of Rome. Pope Sixtus
   hated nothing so much as illegitimate birth; and Acquaviva
   caused him to be informed that Manrique, the bishop selected
   as 'Visitator' of the Jesuits, was illegitimate. These were
   reasons sufficient to make Sixtus recall the assent he had
   already given to the visitation. He even summoned the case of
   the provincial before the tribunals of Rome. From his
   successor, Gregory XIV., the general succeeded in obtaining a
   formal confirmation of the rule of the order. But his
   antagonists also were unyielding and crafty. They perceived
   that the general must be attacked in the court of Rome itself.
   They availed themselves of his momentary absence. … In the
   summer of 1592, at the request of the Spanish Jesuits and
   Philip II., but without the knowledge of Acquaviva, the
   pontiff commanded that a general congregation should be held.
   Astonished and alarmed, Acquaviva hastened back. To the
   generals of the Jesuits these 'Congregations' were no less
   inconvenient than were the Convocations of the Church to the
   popes; and if his predecessors were anxious to avoid them, how
   much more cause had Acquaviva, against whom there prevailed so
   active an enmity! But he was soon convinced that the
   arrangement was irrevocable; he therefore resumed his
   composure and said, 'We are obedient sons; let the will of the
   holy father be done.' …
{1891}
   Philip of Spain had demanded some changes, and had
   recommended others for consideration. On two things he'
   insisted: the resignation of certain papal privileges; those
   of reading forbidden books, for example, and of granting
   absolution for the crime of heresy; and a law, by virtue of
   which every novice who entered the order should surrender
   whatever patrimonial rights he might possess, and should even
   resign all his benefices. These were matters in regard to
   which the order came into collision with the Inquisition and
   the civil government. After some hesitation, the demands of
   the king were complied with, and principally through the
   influence of Acquaviva himself. But the points recommended by
   Philip for consideration were of much higher moment. First of
   all came the questions, whether the authority of the superiors
   should not be limited to a certain period; and whether a
   general congregation should not be held at certain fixed
   intervals? The very essence and being of the institute, the
   rights of absolute sovereignty, were here brought into
   question. Acquaviva was not on this occasion disposed to
   comply. After an animated discussion, the congregation
   rejected these propositions of Philip; but the pope, also, was
   convinced of their necessity. What had been refused to the
   king was now commanded by the pope. By the plenitude of his
   apostolic power, he determined and ordained that the superiors
   and rectors should be changed every third year; and that, at
   the expiration of every sixth year, a general congregation
   should be assembled. It is, indeed, true that the execution of
   these ordinances did not effect so much as had been hoped from
   them. … It was, nevertheless, a very serious blow to the
   society, that it had been compelled, by internal revolt and
   interference from without, to a change in its statutes."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 6, section 9 (volume 2)._

JESUITS: A. D. 1581-1641.
   Hostility of the Paulistas of Brazil.
   Opposition to enslavement of the Indians.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

JESUITS: A. D. 1595.
   Expulsion from Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

JESUITS: A. D. 1606.
   Exclusion from Venice for half a century.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

JESUITS: A. D. 1653-1660.
   First controversy and conflict with the Jansenists.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

JESUITS: A. D. 1702-1715.
   The renewed conflict with Jansenism in France.
   The Bull Unigenitus.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
   Suppression of the Society in Portugal and the Portuguese
   dominions.

   In 1757, a series of measures intended to break the power, if
   not to end the existence, of the Society of Jesus, in Portugal
   and the Portuguese dominions, was undertaken by the great
   Portuguese minister, Carvalho, better known by his later title
   as the Marquis of Pombal. "It is not necessary to speculate on
   the various motives which induced Carvalho to attack the
   Jesuits, but the principal cause lay in the fact that they
   were wealthy and powerful, and therefore a dangerous force in
   an absolutist monarchy. It must be remembered that the Jesuits
   of the 18th century formed a very different class of men to
   their predecessors. They were no longer intrepid missionary
   pioneers, but a corporation of wealthy traders, who made use
   of their spiritual position to further the cause of their
   commerce. They had done a great work in America by opening up
   the interior of Brazil and converting the natives, and their
   administration of Paraguay, one of the most interesting
   achievements in the whole history of Christianity, was without
   doubt a blessing to the people. But by the middle of the 18th
   century they had gone too far. It was one thing to convert the
   natives of Brazil, and another to absorb much of the wealth of
   that country, in doing which they prejudiced not only the
   Crown but the Portuguese people, whom they kept from settling
   in the territory under their rule. Whether it was a sufficient
   reason for Carvalho to attack the order, because it was
   wealthy and powerful, and had departed from its primitive
   simplicity, is a question for everyone to decide for
   themselves, but that this was the reason, and that the various
   excuses alleged by the admirers of the great minister are
   without foundation, is an undoubted fact. On September 19,
   1757, the first important blow was struck, when the king's
   Jesuit confessor was dismissed, and all Jesuits were forbidden
   to come to Court. Carvalho, in the name of the King of
   Portugal, also formally denounced the order at Rome, and
   Benedict XIV., the then Pope, appointed the Cardinal de
   Saldanha, a friend of the minister, Visitor and Reformer of
   the Society of Jesus. The cardinal did not take long in making
   up his mind, and May 15, 1758, he forbade the Jesuits to
   engage in trade. An attempt upon the king's life, which
   shortly followed this measure, gave the minister the
   opportunity he wanted for urging the suppression of the famous
   society. The history of the Tavora plot, which culminated in
   this attempt, is one of the most mysterious affairs in the
   whole history of Portugal. … The three leaders of the plot
   were the Duke of Aveiro, a descendant of John II., and one of
   the greatest noblemen in Portugal, the Marquis of Tavora, who
   had filled with credit the post of Governor-general of India,
   and the Count of Atouguia, a descendant of the gallant Dom
   Luis de Athaide, the defender of Goa; but the heart and soul
   of the conspiracy was the Marchioness of Tavora, a beautiful
   and ambitious woman, who was bitterly offended because her
   husband had not been made a duke. The confessor of this lady
   was a Jesuit named Gabriel Malagrida. … The evidence on all
   sides is most contradictory, and all that is certain is that
   the king was fired at and wounded on the night of September 3,
   1758; and that in the following January, the three noblemen
   who have been mentioned, the Marchioness of Tavora, Malagrida
   with seven other Jesuits, and many other individuals of all
   ranks of life, were arrested as implicated in the attempt to
   murder. The laymen had but a short trial and, together with
   the marchioness, were publicly executed ten days after their
   arrest. King Joseph certainly believed that the real culprits
   had been seized, and in his gratitude he created Carvalho
   Count of Oeyras, and encouraged him to pursue his campaign
   against the Jesuits. On January 19, 1759, the estates
   belonging to the society were sequestrated; and on September
   3rd, all its members were expelled from Portugal, and
   directions were sent to the viceroys of India and Brazil to
   expel them likewise. The news of this bold stroke was received
   with admiration everywhere, except at Rome, and it became noised
   abroad that a great minister was ruling in Portugal. …
{1892}
   In 1764 the Jesuit priest Malagrida was burnt alive, not as a
   traitor but as a heretic and imposter, on account of some
   crazy tractates he had written. The man was regarded as a
   martyr, and all communication between Portugal and the Holy
   See was broken off for two years, while the Portuguese
   minister exerted all his influence with the Courts of France
   and Spain to procure the entire suppression of the society
   which he hated. The king supported him consistently, and after
   another attempt upon his life in 1769, which the minister as
   usual attributed to the Jesuits, King Joseph created his
   faithful servant Marquis of Pombal, by which title he is best
   known to fame. The prime ministers of France and Spain
   cordially acquiesced in the hatred of the Jesuits, for both
   the Duc de Choiseul and the Count d'Aranda had something of
   Pombal's spirit in them, and imitated his policy; in both
   countries the society, which on its foundation had done so
   much for Catholicism and Christianity, was proscribed, and the
   worthy members treated with as much rigour as the unworthy;
   and finally in 1773 Pope Clement XIV. solemnly abolished the
   Society of Jesus. King Joseph did not long survive this
   triumph of his minister, for he died on February 24, 1777, and
   the Marquis of Pombal, then an old man of 77, was at once
   dismissed from office."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Nicolini,
      History of the Jesuits,
      chapter 15._

      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
   Proceedings against the Order in the Parliament of Paris.
   Suppression in France, Spain, Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Venice.
   Demands on the Pope for the abolition of the Society.

   "Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions
   in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the
   island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and
   enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in
   the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile
   transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success.
   It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but
   the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by
   means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence
   with the principal commercial firms in France, and
   particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of
   Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to
   their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in
   Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic
   proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the
   breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging
   to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were
   captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes
   confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre,
   to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to
   bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be
   responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father
   Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined
   to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the
   latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to
   contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to
   appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of
   their contention, that each college was independent in the
   matter of temporal property, and that no corporate
   responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded
   that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined.
   The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they
   obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious
   records, which had never before been inspected by any but
   Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the
   turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were
   disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the
   General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society
   which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still
   outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the
   space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of
   payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property
   of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially
   restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public,
   who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was
   excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second
   consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761,
   "condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating
   from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the
   executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the
   court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt'
   prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society;
   forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in
   theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools
   and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against
   their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous
   doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide.
   … The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering
   the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for
   the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but
   stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay
   should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made
   other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to
   proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too
   confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the
   prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it
   was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake
   openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a
   deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his
   people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was
   summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon
   several questions relative to the utility of the Society of
   Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the
   modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the
   extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society.
   The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to
   the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to
   public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and
   practical administration. … This project of compromise was
   forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the
   General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his
   ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible
   to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as
   a body corporate in France.
{1893}
   It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the
   General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope
   Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them
   remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had
   the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was
   problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order.
   Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome,
   proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in
   March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures
   adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August
   preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de
   Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some
   hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to
   shield the Order against its impending destiny. The
   Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to
   the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of
   April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges
   in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was
   followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz,
   Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general
   chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was
   struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762.
   … The sentence then passed condemned the Society as
   'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch
   as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of
   authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the
   veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to
   evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which
   the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first,
   absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' …
   The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits
   illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the
   Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members.
   They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to
   renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon
   pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or
   public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the
   lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree
   of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small
   majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in
   favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful
   government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they
   were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of
   Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The
   suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the
   administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a
   royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not
   give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that
   the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's
   dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France
   as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical
   functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost
   immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared
   the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with
   all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the
   measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant
   defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the
   Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility
   against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding,
   as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul,
   abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of
   April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe
   by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a
   prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from
   his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical
   regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the
   Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in
   virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the
   Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication
   against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a
   rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly
   combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull
   was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at
   Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena,
   from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his
   'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession
   of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples
   seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769,
   the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint
   note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus
   should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had
   suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses
   of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from
   the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost
   suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 6, chapter 6,
      and book 7, chapter 1._

JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871
   Papal suppression and restoration of the Order.

   "The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening,
   and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that
   Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown,
   as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the
   Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he
   had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not
   altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far
   as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of
   the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered
   memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773,
   which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the
   inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non
   sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree
   declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow,
   jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own
   members but between them and the other religious orders and
   their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its
   head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church,
   and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer
   subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other
   grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree
   abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and
   institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were
   jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of
   Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon,
   and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the
   Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised
   for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor
   noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their
   General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo.
{1894}
   Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the
   death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were
   suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned
   to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of
   Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded
   in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue,
   impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de
   Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by
   poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate
   with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious
   attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the
   time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of
   Clement XIV."

      _The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
      (Fraser's' Magazine, May, 1873)._

   "All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of
   Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the
   last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us
   indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have
   conflicting statements, both of which cannot be
   true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against
   cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one
   side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in
   the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days
   of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest
   commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the
   crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace
   and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony
   of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation,
   if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a
   special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to
   canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language
   which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark
   charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore
   involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and
   powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is
   this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate
   student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses
   even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of
   mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the
   Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the
   adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and
   those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most
   ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other
   orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals.
   Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as
   feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism
   deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant
   against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and
   Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties
   counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of
   equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each
   other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same
   reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each
   inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of
   true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping
   and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death
   of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is
   singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone
   doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the
   Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and
   the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they
   found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II.,
   from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the
   decrees of the Pope."

      _Clement XIV. and the Jesuits
      (Quarterly Review, September, 1848.)_

   "The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of
   forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after
   his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I.
   at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814,
   'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving
   members of the Order again to live according to the rules of
   their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With
   singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the
   Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of
   the document as the principal reason for its being issued the
   recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August
   11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the
   Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that
   Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date
   of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by
   the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as
   they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and
   vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful
   intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but
   a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the
   restored order. We find a striking comment on his
   recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the
   Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the
   Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their
   former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of
   the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were
   recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National
   Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of
   their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from
   France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal
   again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in
   1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman
   Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other
   German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled
   from every Italian State, even from the territories of the
   Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again
   expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the
   Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent
   vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the
   vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the
   sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland,
   by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the
   country, from interfering even in education, or from founding
   or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal
   territories. They have thus within a recent period received
   sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic
   Government, but they still remain in Rome."

      _The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany
      (Fraser's Magazine, May, 1873)._

{1895}

JESUITS: A. D. 1847.
   The question of Expulsion in Switzerland.
   The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

JESUITS: A. D. 1880.
   The law against Jesuit schools in the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

   ----------JESUITS: End--------

JESUS, Uncertainty of, the date of the birth of.

      See JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

JEU-DE-PAUME, The Oath at the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

JEUNESSE DOREE, of the Anti-Jacobin reaction in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------JEWS: Start--------

JEWS.
   The National Names.

   There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of
   the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were
   originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor,
   Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying
   "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was
   applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their
   country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this
   latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that
   the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest
   than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so
   as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of
   their names that appears to have been current in the earliest
   times. The history of this name shows that it must have been
   most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch
   of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant,
   but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared
   from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period
   immediately before Christ, like many other names of the
   primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of
   regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through
   the reverence then felt for Abraham."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 1, page 284._

   After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian
   captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of
   Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant
   place in the national titles. As the primitive name of
   'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so
   that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,'
   so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was
   born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on
   the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      volume 3, page 101._

JEWS:
   The early Hebrew history.

   "Of course, in the abstract, it is possible that such persons
   as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have existed. One can
   imagine that such and such incidents in the accounts regarding
   them really took place, and were handed down by tradition. …
   But our present investigation does not concern the question
   whether there existed men of those names, but whether the
   progenitors of Israel and of the neighbouring nations who are
   represented in Genesis are historical personages. It is this
   question which we answer in the negative. Must we then deny
   all historical value to the narratives of the patriarchs? By
   no means. What we have to do is to make proper use of them.
   They teach us what the Israelites thought as to their
   affinities with the tribes around them, and as to the manner
   of their own settlement in the land of their abode. If we
   strip them of their genealogical form, and at the same time
   take into consideration the influence which Israel's self-love
   must have exercised over the representation of relationships
   and facts, we have an historical kernel left. … The
   narratives in Genesis, viewed and used in this way, lead us to
   the following conception of Israel's early history. Canaan was
   originally inhabited by a number of tribes—of Semitic origin,
   as we shall perceive presently—who applied themselves to the
   rearing of cattle, to agriculture, or to commerce, according
   to the nature of the districts in which they were established.
   The countries which were subsequently named after Edom, Ammon,
   and Moab, also had their aboriginal inhabitants, the Horites,
   the Zamzummites, and the Emites. Whilst all these tribes
   retained possession of their dwelling-places, and the
   inhabitants of Canaan especially had reached a tolerably high
   stage of civilization and development, there occurred a
   Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Arphacsad,
   Ur Casdim), and moved on in a south-westerly direction. The
   countries to the east and the south of Canaan were gradually
   occupied by these intruders, the former inhabitants being
   either expelled or subjugated; Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom
   became the ruling nations in those districts. In Canaan the
   situation was different. The tribes which—at first closely
   connected with the Edomites, but afterwards separated from
   them—had turned their steps towards Canaan, did not find
   themselves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact
   tribute from, the original inhabitants; they continued their
   wandering life among them, and lived upon the whole at peace
   with them. But a real settlement was still their aim. When,
   therefore, they had become more numerous and powerful, through
   the arrival of a number of kindred settlers from
   Mesopotamia—represented in tradition by the army with which
   Jacob returns to Canaan—they resumed their march in the same
   south-westerly direction, until at length they took possession
   of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen, on the borders of
   Egypt."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "In the oldest extant record respecting Abraham, Genesis xiv.,
   … we see him acting as a powerful domestic prince, among
   many similar princes, who like him held Canaan in possession;
   not calling himself King, like Melchizedek, the priest-king of
   Salem, because he was the father and protector of his house,
   living with his family and bondmen in the open country, yet
   equal in power to the petty Canaanite kings. …
{1896}
   Detached as this account may be, it is at least evident from
   it that the Canaanites were at that time highly civilised,
   since they had a priest-king like Melchizedek, whom Abraham
   held in honour, but that they were even then so weakened by
   endless divisions and by the emasculating influence of that
   culture itself, as either to pay tribute to the warlike
   nations of the northeast (as the five kings of the cities of
   the Dead Sea had done for twelve years before they rebelled,
   ver. 4), or to seek for some valiant descendants of the
   northern lands living in their midst, who in return for
   certain concessions and services promised them protection and
   defence. … This idea furnishes the only tenable historical
   view of the migration of Abraham and his kindred. They did not
   conquer the land, nor at first hold it by mere force of arms,
   like the four north-eastern kings from whose hand Abraham
   delivered Lot, Genesis xiv. They advanced as leaders of small
   bands, with their fencible servants and the herds, at first
   rather sought or even invited by the old inhabitants of the
   land, as good warriors and serviceable allies, than forcing
   themselves upon them. Thus they took up their abode and
   obtained possessions among them, but were always wishing to
   migrate farther, even into Egypt. … Little as we are able to
   prove all the details of that migration from the north towards
   Egypt, which probably continued for centuries, it may with
   great certainty be conceived as on the whole similar to the
   gradual advance of many other northern nations; as of the
   Germans towards Rome, and of the Turks in these same regions
   in the Middle Ages. … We now understand that Abraham's name
   can designate only one of the most important and oldest of the
   Hebrew immigrations. But since Abraham had so early attained a
   name glorious among the Hebrews advancing towards the south,
   and since he was everything especially to the nation of Israel
   which arose out of this immigration, and to their nearest
   kindred, his name came to be the grand centre and
   rallying-point of all the memory of those times."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 1, section 1, C, part 3._

JEWS:
   The Children of Israel in Egypt.

   "It has been very generally supposed that Abraham's visit to
   Egypt took place under the reign of one of the kings of the
   twelfth dynasty [placed by Brugsch B. C. 2466-2266], but which
   king has not yet been satisfactorily made out. … Some
   Biblical critics have considered that Amenemha III. was king
   of Egypt when Abraham came there, and others that Usertsen I.
   was king, and that Amenemha was the Pharaoh of the time of
   Joseph. … It is generally accepted now that Joseph was sold
   into Egypt at the time when the Hyksos were in power [and
   about 1750 B. C.]; and it is also generally accepted that the
   Exodus took place after the death of Rameses II. and under the
   reign of Merenptah, or Meneptah. Now the children of Israel
   were in captivity in Egypt for 400 or 430 years; and as they
   went out of Egypt after the death of Rameses II., it was
   probably some time about the year 1350 B. C. There is little
   doubt that the Pharaoh who persecuted the Israelites so
   shamefully was Rameses II."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      The Dwellers on the Nile,
      chapter 4._

   "It is stated by George the Syncellus, a writer whose
   extensive learning and entire honesty are unquestionable, that
   the synchronism of Joseph with Apepi, the last king of the
   only known Hyksos dynasty, was 'acknowledged by all.' The best
   modern authorities accept this view, if not as clearly
   established, at any rate as in the highest degree probable,
   and believe that it was Apepi who made the gifted Hebrew his
   prime minister, who invited his father and his brethren to
   settle in Egypt with their households, and assigned to them
   the land of Goshen for their residence."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Ancient Egypt,
      chapter 19 (volume 2)._

   "The new Pharaoh, 'who knew not Joseph,' who adorned the city
   of Ramses, the capital of the Tanitic nome, and the city of
   Pithom, the capital of what was afterwards the Sethroitic
   nome, with temple-cities, is no other, can be no other, than
   Ramessu II. or Rameses—the Sesostris of the Greeks, B. C.
   1350, of whose buildings at Zoan the monuments and the
   papyrus-rolls speak in complete agreement. … Ramessu is the
   Pharaoh of the oppression, and the father of that unnamed
   princess, who found the child Moses exposed in the bulrushes
   on the bank of the river. … If Ramses-Sesostris … must be
   regarded beyond all doubt as the Pharaoh under whom the Jewish
   legislator Moses first saw the light, so the chronological
   relations—having regard to the great age of the two
   contemporaries, Ramses II. and Moses—demand that Mineptah
   [his son] should in all probability be acknowledged as the
   Pharaoh of the Exodus."

      _H. Brugsch-Bey,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 14._

   The quotations given above represent the orthodox view of
   early Jewish history, in the light of modern monumental
   studies,—the view, that is, which accepts the Biblical
   account of Abraham and his seed as a literal family record,
   authentically widening into the annals of a nation. The more
   rationalizing views are indicated by the following: "There can
   be no doubt … as to the Semitic character of these Hyksos,
   or 'Pastors,' who, more than 2,000 years B. C., interrupted in
   a measure the current of Egyptian civilisation, and founded at
   Zoan (Tanis), near the Isthmus, the centre of a powerful
   Semitic state. These Hyksos were to all appearances
   Canaanites, near relations of the Hittites of Hebron. Hebron
   was in close community with Zoan, and there is a tradition,
   probably based upon historical data, that the two cities were
   built nearly at the same time. As invariably happens when
   barbarians enter into an ancient and powerful civilisation,
   the Hyksos soon became Egyptianised. … The Hyksos of Zoan
   could not fail to exercise a great influence upon the Hebrews
   who were encamped around Hebron, the Dead Sea, and in the
   southern districts of Palestine. The antipathy which
   afterwards existed between the Hebrews and the Canaanites was
   not as yet very perceptible. … There are the best of reasons
   for believing that the immigration of the Beni-Israel took
   place at two separate times. A first batch of Israelites seems
   to have been attracted by the Hittites of Egypt, while the
   bulk of the tribe was living upon the best of terms with the
   Hittites of Hebron. These first immigrants found favour with
   the Egyptianised Hittites of Memphis and Zoan; they secured
   very good positions, had children, and constituted a distinct
   family in Israel. This was what was afterwards called the
   'clan of the Josephel,' or the Beni-Joseph. Finding themselves
   well off in Lower Egypt, they sent for their brethren, who,
   impelled perhaps by famine, joined them there, and were
   received also favourably by the Hittite dynasties. These
   new-comers never went to Memphis. They remained in the
   vicinity of Zoan, where there is a land of Goshen, which was
   allotted to them. …
{1897}
   The whole of these ancient days, concerning which Israel
   possesses only legends and contradictory traditions, is
   enveloped in doubt; one thing, however, is certain, viz., that
   Israel entered Egypt under a dynasty favourable to the
   Semites, and left it under one which was hostile. The presence
   of a nomad tribe upon the extreme confines of Egypt must have
   been a matter of very small importance for this latter
   country. There is no certain trace of it in the Egyptian
   texts. The kingdom of Zoan, upon the contrary, left a deep
   impression upon the Israelites. Zoan became for them
   synonymous with Egypt. The relations between Zoan and Hebron
   were kept up, and … Hebron was proud of the synchronism,
   which made it out seven years older than Zoan. The
   first-comers, the Josephites, always assumed an air of
   superiority over their brethren, whose position they had been
   instrumental in establishing. … Their children, born in
   Egypt, possibly of Egyptian mothers, were scarcely Israelites.
   An agreement was come to, however; it was agreed that the
   Josephites should rank as Israelites with the rest. They
   formed two distinct tribes, those of Ephraim and Manasseh. …
   It is not impossible that the origin of the name of Joseph
   (addition, adjunction, annexation) may have arisen from the
   circumstance that the first emigrants and their families,
   having become strangers to their brethren, needed some sort of
   adjunction to become again part and parcel of the family of
   Israel."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS, and ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

JEWS:
   The Route of the Exodus.

   It is said of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt that "they
   built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."
   (Exodus i. 11.) One of those "treasure cities," or
   "store-cities," has been discovered, in a heap of ruins, at a
   place which the Arabs call "Tell el Maskhutah," and it was
   supposed at first to be the Raamses of the Biblical record.
   But explorations made in 1883 by M. Naville seem to have
   proved that it is the store-city of Pithom which lies buried
   in the mounds at Tell el Maskhutah and that Raamses is still
   to be found. As Raamses or Ramses was the starting point of
   the Exodus, something of a controversy concerning the route of
   the latter turns upon the question. It is the opinion of M.
   Naville that Succoth, where the Children of Israel made their
   first halt, was the district in which Pithom is situated, and
   that the Land of Goshen, their dwelling-place in Egypt, was a
   region embracing that district. The site of Pithom, as
   identified by Naville, is "on the south side of the sweet
   water canal which runs from Cairo to Suez through the Wadi
   Tumilât, about 12 miles from Ismailiah." The excavations made
   have brought to light a great number of chambers, with massive
   walls of brick, which are conjectured to have been granaries
   and storehouses, for the provisioning of caravans and armies
   to cross the desert to Syria, as well as for the collecting of
   tribute and for the warehousing of trade. Hence the name of
   store-city, or treasure-city. Under the Greeks Pithom changed
   its name to Heroopolis, and a new city called Arsinoë was
   built near it.

      _E. Naville,
      The Store-City of Pithom._

   "I submit that Goshen, properly speaking, was the land which
   afterwards became the Arabian nome, viz., the country round
   Saft el Henneh east of the canal Abu-I-Munagge, a district
   comprising Belbeis and Abbaseh, and probably extending further
   north than the Wadi Tumilat. The capital of the nome was Pa
   Sopt, called by the Greeks Phacusa, now Saft el Henneh. At the
   time when the Israelites occupied the land, the term 'Goshen'
   belonged to a region which as yet had no definite boundaries,
   and which extended with the increase of the people over the
   territory they inhabited. The term 'land of Ramses' applies to
   a larger area, and covers that part of the Delta which lies to
   the eastward of the Tanitic branch. … As for the city of
   Ramses, it was situate in the Arabian nome. Probably it was
   Phacusa."

      _E. Naville,
      Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen._

   The Israelites leaving Succoth, a region which we now know
   well, the neighbourhood of Tell-el-Maskhutah, push forward
   towards the desert, skirting the northern shore of the gulf,
   and thus reach the wilderness of Etham; but there, because of
   the pursuit of Pharaoh, they have to change their course, they
   are told to retrace their steps, so as to put the sea between
   them and the desert. … 'And the Lord spake unto Moses,
   saying: Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and
   encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over
   against Baalzephon; before it shall ye encamp by the sea.' …
   The question is now, Where are we to look for Migdol and
   Pi-Hahiroth? As for Migdol, the ancient authors, and
   particularly the Itinerary, mention a Migdol, or Magdolon,
   which was twelve Roman miles distant from Pelusium. It is not
   possible to admit that this is the same Migdol which is spoken
   of in Exodus, for then it would not be the Red Sea, but the
   Mediterranean, which the Israelites would have before them,
   and we should thus have to fall in with MM. Schleiden and
   Brugsch's theory, that they followed the narrow track which
   lies between the Mediterranean and the Serbonian Bog. However
   ingenious are the arguments on which this system is based, I
   believe it must now be dismissed altogether, because we know
   the site of the station of Succoth. Is it possible to admit
   that, from the shore of the Arabian Gulf, the Israelites
   turned to the north, and marched forty miles through the
   desert in order to reach the Mediterranean? The journey would
   have lasted several days; they would have been obliged to pass
   in front of the fortresses of the north; they would have
   fallen into the way of the land of the Philistines, which they
   were told not to take; and, lastly, the Egyptians, issuing
   from Tanis and the northern cities, would have easily
   intercepted them. … All these reasons induce me to give up
   definitively the idea of the passage by the north, and to
   return to the old theory of a passage of the Red Sea, but of
   the Red Sea as it was at that time, extending a great deal
   farther northward, and not the Red Sea of to-day, which
   occupies a very different position. The word Migdol, in
   Egyptian, … is a common name. It means a fort, a tower. It
   is very likely that in a fortified region there have been
   several places so called, distinguished from each other,
   either by the name of the king who built them, or by some
   local circumstance; just as there are in Italy a considerable
   number of Torre. I should therefore, with M. Ebers, place
   Migdol at the present station of the Serapeum. There the sea
   was not wide, and the water probably very shallow; there also
   the phenomenon which took place on such a large scale when the
   Israelites went through must have been well known, as it is
   often seen now in other parts of Egypt.
{1898}
   As at this point the sea was liable to be driven back under
   the influence of the east wind, and to leave a dry way, the
   Pharaohs were obliged to have there a fort, a Migdol, so as to
   guard that part of the sea, and to prevent the Asiatics of the
   desert from using this temporary gate to enter Egypt, to steal
   cattle, and to plunder the fertile land which was round
   Pithom."

      _E. Naville,
      The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus
      (Egypt Expl. Fund, 1885)._

   "Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation,
   according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv.
   21, 22, which lay stress upon the 'east wind' as the direct
   natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made
   dry land. … The theory, which dates from an early period,
   that the passage was in some sense tidal, miraculously aided
   by the agency of wind, has thus come to be very generally
   adopted."

      _H. S. Palmer,
      Sinai
      (Ancient History from the Monuments),
      chapter 6._

JEWS:
   The conquest of Canaan.

   "The first essay [west of Jordan] was made by Judah in
   conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous.
   Simeon and Levi were annihilated; Judah also, though
   successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the
   Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were
   not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families
   of the south (Caleb). As a consequence of the secession of
   these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and
   Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted
   between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel were
   included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which
   three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all the
   others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This
   half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a
   second, which was stronger and attended with much better
   results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the
   others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining
   behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of
   Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be
   attacked. It was not until after several towns of this
   district had one by one fallen into the hands of the
   conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance.
   They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the
   neighbourhood of Gibeon [or Beth-horon]; and by this victory
   the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of
   Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan,
   which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the
   ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of
   Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforwards the headquarters were
   fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly
   made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it
   on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory
   which up to that time had been acquired—Benjamin, in
   immediate contiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim,
   stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to
   the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of
   gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which
   belonged Joshua and the ark, It is mentioned as the last
   achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated
   Jabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee,
   thereby opening up the north for Israelitish settlers. …
   Even after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been
   broken, each individual community had still enough to do
   before it could take firm hold of the spot which it had
   searched out for itself or to which it had been assigned. The
   business of effecting permanent settlement was just a
   continuation of the former struggle, only on a diminished
   scale; every tribe and every family now fought for its own
   hand after the preliminary work had been accomplished by a
   united effort. Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first
   but an incomplete one. The plain which fringed the coast was
   hardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle
   of fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean. All
   that was subdued in the strict sense of that word was the
   mountainous land, particularly the southern hill-country of
   'Mount Ephraim'; yet even here the Canaanites retained
   possession of not a few cities, such as Jebus, Shechem,
   Thebez. It was only after the lapse of centuries that all the
   lacunæ were filled up, and the Canaanite enclaves made
   tributary. The Israelites had the extraordinarily
   disintegrated state of the enemy to thank for the ease with
   which they had achieved success."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 2._

   "Remnants of the Canaanites remained everywhere among and
   between the Israelites. Beside the Benjamites the Jebusites (a
   tribe of the Amorites) maintained themselves, and at Gibeon,
   Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth were the Hivites, who
   had made peace with the Israelites. In the land of Ephraim,
   the Canaanites held their ground at Geser and Bethel, until
   the latter—it was an important city—was stormed by the
   Ephraimites. Among the tribe of Manasseh the Canaanites were
   settled at Beth Shean, Dan, Taanach, Jibleam, Megiddo and
   their districts, and in the northern tribes the Canaanites
   were still more numerous. It was not till long after the
   immigration of the Hebrews that they were made in part
   tributary. The land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, where
   the tribe of Manasseh possessed the north, Gad the centre, and
   Reuben the south as far as the Arnon, was exposed to the
   attacks of the Ammonites and Moabites, and the migratory
   tribes of the Syrian desert, and must have had the greater
   attraction for them, as better pastures were to be found in
   the heights of Gilead, and the valleys there were more
   fruitful. To the west only the tribe of Ephraim reached the
   sea, and became master of a harbourless strip of coast. The
   remaining part of the coast and all the harbours remained in
   the hands of the powerful cities of the Philistines and the
   Phenicians. No attempt was made to conquer these, although
   border-conflicts took place between the tribes of Judah, Dan,
   and Asher, and Philistines and Sidonians. Such an attempt
   could only have been made if the Israelites had remained
   united, and even then the powers of the Israelites would
   hardly have sufficed to overthrow the walls of Gaza, Ascalon,
   and Ashdod, of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus. Yet the invasion of
   the Israelites was not without results for the cities of the
   coast: it forced a large part of the population to assemble in
   them, and we shall see … how rapid and powerful is the
   growth of the strength and importance of Tyre in the time
   immediately following the incursion of the Israelites, i. e.,
   immediately after the middle of the thirteenth century.
{1899}
   As the population and in consequence the power of the cities
   on the coast increased, owing to the collection of the ancient
   population on the shore of the sea, those cities became all
   the more dangerous neighbours for the Israelites. It was a
   misfortune for the new territory which the Israelites had won
   by the sword that it was without the protection of natural
   boundaries on the north and east, that the cities of the
   Philistines and Phenicians barred it towards the sea, and in
   the interior remnants of the Canaanites still maintained their
   place. Yet it was a far more serious danger for the immigrants
   that they were without unity, connection, or guidance, for
   they had already given up these before the conflict was ended.
   Undoubtedly a vigorous leadership in the war of conquest
   against the Canaanites might have established a military
   monarchy which would have provided better for the maintenance
   of the borders and the security of the land than was done in
   its absence. But the isolated defence made by the Canaanites
   permitted the attacking party also to isolate themselves. The
   new masters of the land lived, like the Canaanites before and
   among them, in separate cantons; the mountain land which they
   possessed was much broken up, and without any natural centre,
   and though there were dangerous neighbours, there was no
   single concentrated aggressive power in the neighbourhood, now
   that Egypt remained in her borders. The cities of the
   Philistines formed a federation merely, though a federation
   far more strongly organised than the tribes of the Israelites.
   Under these circumstances political unity was not an
   immediately pressing question among the Israelites."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 2, C._

JEWS:
   Israel under the Judges.
   The wars of the Period.
   Conquest of Gilead and Bashan.
   Founding of the kingdom.

   "The office which gives its name to the period [between the
   death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel] well describes it. It
   was occasional, irregular, uncertain, yet gradually tending to
   fixedness and perpetuity. Its title is itself expressive. The
   Ruler was not regal, but he was more than the mere head of a
   tribe, or the mere judge of special cases. We have to seek for
   the origin of the name, not amongst the Sheykhs of the Arabian
   desert, but amongst the civilised settlements of Phœnicia.
   'Shophet,' 'Shophetim,' the Hebrew word which we translate
   'Judge,' is the same as we find in the 'Suffes,' 'Suffetes,'
   of the Carthaginian rulers at the time of the Punic wars. As
   afterwards the office of 'king' was taken from the nations
   round about, so now, if not the office, at least the name of
   'judge' or 'shophet' seems to have been drawn from the
   Canaanitish cities, with which for the first time Israel came
   into contact. … Finally the two offices which, in the
   earlier years of this period, had remained distinct—the High
   Priest and the Judge—were united in the person of Eli."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 13._

   "The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the
   Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion
   of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king
   whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the
   'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of
   imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war
   mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined
   with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the
   Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. …
   After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a
   Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of
   Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a
   body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The
   Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of
   the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man.
   While this war was going on on one side of the land, the
   Philistines from the south were harassing those of the
   Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history
   then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear
   of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the
   country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were
   under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and
   they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who
   were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After
   a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and
   Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their
   oppressors, and called to their help their stronger
   neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the
   most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted
   some form of government, while the other tribes were
   stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was
   right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time
   governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman
   of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with
   some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader
   of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near
   the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the
   general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by
   Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The
   next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites
   and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the
   Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same
   time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt
   amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together
   the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of
   Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come
   over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however,
   routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to
   guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives.
   … This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also
   named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel,
   and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of
   a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded
   them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank
   of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at
   Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who
   succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the
   land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of
   that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his
   brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king
   at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the
   Israelites.
{1900}
   But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of
   a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in
   the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the
   chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was
   then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After
   Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. …
   Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same
   time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling
   or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of
   Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites,
   who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead,
   had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides
   of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent
   for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he
   had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that
   the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had
   possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to
   which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed
   the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the
   Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In
   stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their
   arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower
   Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came
   to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and
   Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused,
   they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of
   the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There
   they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on
   defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the
   Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly
   for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or
   the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This
   is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and
   for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in
   the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of
   the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as
   having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og,
   king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers,
   was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon
   the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not
   wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical
   knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount
   Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of
   the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers
   were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in
   Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of
   geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not
   mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling
   in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern
   narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and
   defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of
   Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine
   cubits in length."

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of the Hebrew Nation,
      pages 4-9._

   "At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of
   the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were
   an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and
   their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life.
   All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies
   they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they
   learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail
   to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To
   make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking
   —that Israel should also accept the religion of the
   aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to
   a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries
   became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite
   nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it
   seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought
   their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them
   their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a
   Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would
   have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had
   other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth
   the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the
   preservation and development of the national faith, and the
   history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the
   Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which
   Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions
   of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel.
   … In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had
   become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not
   the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears
   henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah,
   but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith,
   while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in
   virtue of the close connection between religion and national
   feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of
   absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation
   in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of
   Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently
   secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had
   brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew
   tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than
   any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from
   Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as
   emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the
   aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains
   of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the
   heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in
   the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew
   settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the
   tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

       _W. Robertson Smith,
       The Prophets of Israel,
       lecture 1._

JEWS:
   The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

   "No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and
   warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the
   Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his
   birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious
   feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and
   Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed
   faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that
   they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by
   all their neighbors.
{1901}
   They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under
   existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a
   wide and significant departure from the impulses which had
   hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it
   had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not
   only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to
   judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to
   the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the
   ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by
   which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the
   people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon
   the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed,
   employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in
   the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of
   the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In
   this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the
   Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so
   pressing that the people insist upon their own will in
   opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet
   nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth
   of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in
   Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result.
   Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of
   the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no
   real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of
   the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in
   the first place that he should gain for himself a personal
   reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to
   Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the
   proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he
   should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul,
   the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as
   king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as
   Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the
   situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized
   with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of
   oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the
   threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after
   Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged,
   … Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul
   acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king,
   however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and
   disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him
   and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition
   as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was
   the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the
   requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's
   tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The
   relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the
   question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously
   insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe
   nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of
   his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the
   other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe
   of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In
   the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the
   prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious
   authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and
   deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns
   for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the
   future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage
   in the history of the world. David took refuge with the
   Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military
   chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king,
   but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of
   the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the
   right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows
   out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites,
   such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would
   not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage
   in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of
   Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by
   the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger
   of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile
   David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and
   torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which
   was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is
   announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful
   successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction
   had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the
   ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given
   up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was
   in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah
   assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This
   tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially
   Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the
   surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between
   the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of
   Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however,
   to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to
   leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which
   succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in
   warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won
   the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could
   not rely upon the complete obedience of his
   commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his
   master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The
   Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which
   David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he
   undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded
   specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a
   task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish
   commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one
   of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the
   Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain.
   It was to this point that David next directed his victorious
   arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of
   his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat
   is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Universal History:
      The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations,
      chapter 2._

{1902}

   "After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David
   maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be
   established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the
   great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already
   conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the
   north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great
   plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled,
   we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 3._

   But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of
   Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of
   his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond
   the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him
   by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation
   was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah,
   and there was bitter war between them. But that first division
   was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to
   treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered
   allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and
   Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its
   Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new,
   impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew
   to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the
   world. "History has been completely distorted in representing
   David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly
   the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and
   that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites,
   Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the
   desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its
   tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the
   small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite
   country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the
   Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of
   Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day,
   very much what they were before, only a little weaker.
   Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking
   possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different
   order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the
   execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend
   to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the
   Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the
   Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with
   the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and
   objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing
   their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires
   such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had
   scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel
   as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general
   plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new
   royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory
   which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead
   of Israel."

      _E. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son
   Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him
   by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne
   had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession,
   whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised
   as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the
   latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm
   basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had
   therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard,
   Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an
   excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah
   had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of
   David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of
   contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he
   fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that
   a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who
   had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the
   people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled
   to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape
   death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of
   refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse
   this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his
   death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of
   preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last
   rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon
   did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high
   priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood.
   His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest
   for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar
   were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David
   with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also
   executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of
   blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability.
   Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a
   court of the greatest magnificence."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The
   Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable
   employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to
   cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was
   only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the
   kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated
   by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's
   death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose
   sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war.
   … We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole
   of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could,
   and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all
   events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon,
   son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of
   his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him
   those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky
   'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and
   they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the
   whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against
   Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have
   been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and
   capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon.
   David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon,
   fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially
   for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes,
   continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of
   the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to
   our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day.
   The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If
   Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a
   place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first
   step in that career of profane politics which the prophets
   afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. …
{1903}
   The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and
   married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that
   the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great
   influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of
   Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence.
   Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of
   its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first
   foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram,
   was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with
   constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally
   of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the
   artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials
   for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber.
   The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to
   have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as
   to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is
   greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended
   foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter
   intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer
   by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec
   by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of
   identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was
   confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept
   under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from
   pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and
   other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all
   around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence.
   … When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria,
   the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold.
   Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called
   Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses,
   the commercial or military object of which cannot well be
   defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in
   the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and
   which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very
   good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed
   upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning
   civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India,
   and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez
   belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at
   the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and
   Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very
   little importance in earlier times. Without regularly
   occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley
   of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the
   Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided
   Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two
   fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they
   went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate,
   or to the coast of Malabar."

      E_. Renan,
      History of the People of Israel,
      book 3, chapter 10 (volume 2)._

   The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it
   imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently
   until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen
   them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of
   the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin,
   only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted
   the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their
   king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The
   period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem
   continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the
   kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred
   during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by
   King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles
   from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening
   into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet
   accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain
   of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so
   named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and
   who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of
   silver."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lectures 29-30 (volume 2)._

   For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria
   continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of
   government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that
   the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties
   of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern
   Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan
   Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only
   inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the
   active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the
   history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been
   almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when
   charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah
   brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a
   Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much
   fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the
   Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official
   records, except where it comes into contact with the North,
   through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the
   reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the
   last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying
   abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through
   the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength
   with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of
   Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had
   seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the
   Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes,
   renewed with varying success generation after generation,
   resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds
   such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites
   (Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for
   national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the
   task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history
   presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its
   struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a
   larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has
   no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's
   existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor,
   in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and
   the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national
   existence is likely to find full development where there is
   little political activity; if the life of the North was more
   troubled, it was also larger and more intense.
{1904}
   Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in
   politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the
   traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of
   religion became practical and called for solution by the word
   of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah
   was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be
   easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in
   Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the
   Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim
   upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before
   the union of the crowns, but with the important difference
   that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were
   seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of
   the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the
   kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently
   strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only
   vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still
   claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have
   been generally satisfactory according to the not very high
   standard of the East; for they retained the affections of
   their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are
   favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted
   in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his
   own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity
   and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of
   David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained
   untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon
   had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt
   was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount
   Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings
   erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to
   have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who
   treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common
   to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much
   superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no
   evidence to support this opinion."

      _W. Robertson Smith,
      The Prophets of Israel,
      lecture 5._

   In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a
   soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the
   name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an
   ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans.
   "In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of
   Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne
   of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful
   general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was
   evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon
   endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and
   Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order
   to effect their object they considered it necessary to
   displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for
   him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of
   malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position
   of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah
   was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear
   not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the
   dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz
   … had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he
   was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course
   only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king,
   and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march
   against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and
   unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus
   and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian
   king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not
   listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of
   Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and
   save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the
   hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The
   king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated
   Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east
   of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,
   captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of
   Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,
   Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having
   been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea
   attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before
   Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was
   defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into
   chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held
   out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the
   land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years
   Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile
   broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to
   death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,
   taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient
   Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the
   throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself
   with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into
   captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were
   implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or
   governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the
   population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old
   homes."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Life and Times of Isaiah,
      chapter 3._

   "Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national
   religion then and upon its subsequent development by the
   single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the
   surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,
   while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a
   hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the
   period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able
   to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the
   circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria
   did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely
   due to the prophets."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 6._

   "The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of
   their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover
   any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with
   their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense
   Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was
   in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have
   been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the
   traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a
   mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']
   are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable
   with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 34 (volume 2)._

      See, also, JERUSALEM.

{1905}

JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
   The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

   Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah
   had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.
   … Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its
   deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his
   designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive
   of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The
   neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,
   and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,
   Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's
   apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly
   quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of
   an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.
   Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,
   resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible
   rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;
   Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an
   explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first
   years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a
   formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The
   court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for
   detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the
   movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,
   and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,
   Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

      _M. Arnold,
      Isaiah of Jerusalem,
      introduction._

   Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having
   captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after
   the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at
   Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt
   with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were
   occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).
   The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,
   offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on
   payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to
   retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply
   off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,
   Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were
   collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the
   enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave
   in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands
   of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified
   treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,
   believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to
   secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in
   Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had
   indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against
   Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless
   undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation
   and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly
   than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article
   of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly
   annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with
   the announcement that a remnant should return and form the
   kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's
   own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the
   multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the
   darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted
   their present depression with its bright reverse;
   faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than
   temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of
   good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.
   The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to
   shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train
   against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'
   is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage
   against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle
   in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which
   thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still
   unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was
   annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and
   Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had
   to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was
   triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of
   influential public life can hardly be imagined."

      _J. Wellhausen,
      Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
      chapter 7._

   "We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
   Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
   Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
   the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
   were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
   receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
   bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
   implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
   southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
   Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
   he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
   doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
   interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
   Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
   and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
   The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
   the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
   their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
   bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
   Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
   arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
   place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
   declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
   effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
   reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
   from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
   the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
   Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
   submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
   fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
   number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
   attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
   trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
   and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
   oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
   brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
{1906}
   Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
   royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
   the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
   cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
   to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
   Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
   To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
   subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
   Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
   sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
   he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
   city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
   of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
   stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
   ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
   kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
   the women of his palace, his male and female
   harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
   be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
   rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
   the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
   campaign of the subsequent year."

      _S. R. Driver,
      Isaiah: His Life and Times,
      chapter 7._

   "Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of
   the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little
   more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the
   prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.
   … But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah
   still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria
   was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the
   face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power
   was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal
   condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of
   a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat
   high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the
   king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the
   fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged
   and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.
   The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this
   reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in
   the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious
   innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was
   the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded
   the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider
   changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have
   effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th
   chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited
   to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that
   mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,
   whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless
   recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would
   incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more
   than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to
   be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as
   well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of
   the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah
   in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm
   betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than
   doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen
   years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early
   part of this, its second division, the religious reformation
   must be assigned. A successful campaign against the
   Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell
   within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though
   we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years
   of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded
   by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five
   years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single
   external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been
   a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.
   Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian
   inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,
   Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal
   (669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in
   Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's
   reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important
   in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short
   reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there
   set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over
   nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by
   the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the
   eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate
   cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even
   Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of
   his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
   Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had
   provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and
   dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of
   Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'
   … What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been
   indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not
   only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old
   Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was
   introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after
   receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became
   very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens
   in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous
   reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.
   … Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the
   idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation
   of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and
   relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of
   Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,
   till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This
   innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed
   his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh
   to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,
   this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the
   blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was
   succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.
{1907}
   It is possible that his accession brought about some
   amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and
   that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and
   idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen
   years, though those years are passed over without any notice
   in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great
   importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the
   break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the
   Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the
   death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern
   and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands
   of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal
   kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

      _C. G. Montefiore,
      Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,
      as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,
      (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4._

   "The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
   think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
   … In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
   time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
   same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
   by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
   his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
   to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
   proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
   that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
   of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
   By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
   the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
   transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
   whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
   plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
   meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
   Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
   fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
   Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
   reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
   them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
   encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
   relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
   the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
   was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
   Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
   Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
   kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
   land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
   because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
   father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
   and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
   henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
   of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
   escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
   occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
   Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
   now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
   and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
   the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
   possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
   the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
   who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
   but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
   sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
   of Western Asia, including Judæa."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 6 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
   Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
   The Babylonian captivity.

   "In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
   monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
   was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
   command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
   of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
   Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
   ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
   having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
   and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
   Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
   to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
   was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
   many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
   whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
   Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
   commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
   learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
   Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
   Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
   C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
   scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
   appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
   discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
   treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
   nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
   to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
   (Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
   an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
   during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
   imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
   remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
   his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
   Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
   length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
   despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
   conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
   besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
   king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
   children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
   thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
   childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
   Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
   the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
   devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
   solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
   executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
   palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
   treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
   before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
   were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
   The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
   command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
   the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
   (the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
   strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
   poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
   general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
   allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
   household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
   the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
   were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
   possessed of considerable property. … They had free
   enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
   faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
   and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
   chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
   Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
   numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
   wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
   the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
   others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
   comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
   calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1)._

   The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
   remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
   wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
   themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
   the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
   from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
   abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
   certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
   Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
   evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
   considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
   afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
   than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
   be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
   Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
   nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
   the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
   the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
   imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
   of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
   Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
   the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
   to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
   of the case, that the second and third company of captives
   received another destination. Even had it been possible,
   prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
   vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
   that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
   arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
   historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
   the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
   does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
   Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
   which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
   purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
   attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
   to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
   the districts in which they settled, that their development
   should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
   conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
   maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
   limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
   families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
   which they had formerly exercised."

      _A. Kuenen,
      The Religion of Israel,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
   King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
   master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
   full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
   what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
   power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
   years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
   figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
   documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
   his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
   the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
   no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
   a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
   himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
   his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
   region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
   of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
   Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
   555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
   and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
   eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
   the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
   warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
   danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
   deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
   led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
   discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
   battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
   him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
   the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
   and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
   strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
   Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
   on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
   his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
   kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
   sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
   the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
   before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
   leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
   destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
   of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
   period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
   the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
   interference their own customs, religious and social. …
   Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
   life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
   with their past and give up hope for the future.
{1909}
   But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
   not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
   what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
   abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
   as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
   expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
   every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
   forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
   constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
   encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
   exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
   passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
   Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
   Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
   Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
   eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
   Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
   in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
   to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
   worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
   difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
   with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
   Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
   year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
   the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
   the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
   probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
   into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
   subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
   at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
   a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
   hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
   month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
   town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
   revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
   victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
   before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
   made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
   friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
   struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
   entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
   that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
   and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
   seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
   record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
   the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
   the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
   still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
   Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
   The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
   or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
   alternative is the more probable."

      _P. H. Hunter,
      After the Exile,
      part 1, chapters 1-2._

JEWS: B. C. 537.
   The return from Babylon.

   "The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
   Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
   these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
   Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
   were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
   fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
   of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
   belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
   him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
   return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
   of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
   was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
   his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
   of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
   kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
   empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
   not only to be established anew, but would never be very
   strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
   Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
   announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
   Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
   announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
   commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
   Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
   therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
   of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
   establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
   community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
   the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
   trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
   are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
   silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
   in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
   the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
   180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
   and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
   there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
   fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
   many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
   for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
   'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
   over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
   priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
   of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
   after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
   multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
   of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
   ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
   Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
   men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
   435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
   C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
   prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
   wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
   from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
   joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
   redeemed his servant Jacob."'
{1910}
   'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
   bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
   Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
   person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
   bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
   in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
   you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
   Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
   rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
   and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
   away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
   destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
   the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
   thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
   the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
   foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
   thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
   thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
   shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
   thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
   the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
   sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
   thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
   I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
   islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
   from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
   will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
   thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
   not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
   be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
   bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
   carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
   queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
   before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
   thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
   for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
   were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
   mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
   the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
   was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
   exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
   the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
   Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
   to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
   care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
   and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
   collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
   contributions even came in from those who had remained in
   Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
   silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
   hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
   cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
   had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
   laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
   fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
   soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
   mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
   whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
   … and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
   exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
   which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
   the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
   preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
   the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
   'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
   had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
   Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
   the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
   the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
   Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
   'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
   counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
   whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6)._

   The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
   forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
   the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,
   better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought
   to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set
   on the throne of Babylon."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, introduction._

   "The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
   only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
   of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
   him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
   Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
   the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
   Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
   Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
   enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
   Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
   came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
   the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
   the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
   about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
   was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
   of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
   is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
   Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
   the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
   'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
   stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
   house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
   to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
   Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
   proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
   'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
   thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
   square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
   it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
   sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
   rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
   of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
   nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
   which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
   the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
   to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
   Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
   Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
   build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
   the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
   Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
   necessary timber."

      _T. Lewin,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 2._

{1911}

   "The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
   sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
   hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
   and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
   more to religion, the only source and support of their
   nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
   carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
   indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
   temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
   irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
   the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
   more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
   high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
   willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
   pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
   of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
   mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
   exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
   strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
   went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
   being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
   multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

      _J. J. I. Dollinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew
      in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 9._

JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
   The Babylonian Jews.

   "There is something very remarkable in the history of this
   race, for the most part descendants of those families which
   had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
   Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
   country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
   though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
   remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
   a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
   population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
   While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
   forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
   tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
   authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
   still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
   been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
   Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
   great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
   they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
   became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
   object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
   pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
   their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
   plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
   cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
   Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
   Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
   marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
   Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
   as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
   Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
   Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
   of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
   freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
   gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
   king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
   with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
   "began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
   population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
   to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
   pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
   into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
   Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
   Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
   to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
   upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
   few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
   the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
   refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
   The century of Silence.

   "The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
   Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
   whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
   empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
   it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
   years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
   any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
   silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
   from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
   time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
   That it was a period of growth and development with the
   Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
   life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
   century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
   heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
   and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
   office."

      _T. R Slicer,
      Between the Testaments
      (The New World, March, 1892)._

JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
   The rule of the High Priests.

   "After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
   (413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
   Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
   Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
   under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
   Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
   last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
   had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
   Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
   theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
   3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
   although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
   (Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
   representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
   and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
   the nation."

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
      chapter 4._

{1912}

JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
   The Greek domination.
   Jewish dispersion.
   Hellenism.

   On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
   of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
   Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
   submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
   Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
   which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
   times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
   Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
   the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
   suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
   new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
   Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
   period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
   Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
   respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
   settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
   emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
   Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
   Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
   own dominions.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

   Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
   proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2 (volume 5)._

   "These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
   Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
   and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
   Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
   settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
   other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
   was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
   newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
   their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
   commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
   Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
   later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
   drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
   Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
   marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
   developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
   certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
   prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
   happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
   crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
   but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
   Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek
   tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
   national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
   as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
   bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
   wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
   intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
   honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
   carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
   protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
   there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
   everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
   that between them and all other nations there was an
   insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
   in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
   own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
   with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
   temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
   from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
   There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
   demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
   centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
   an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
   important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
   were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
   remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted
   intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the
   Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even
   upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The
   Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and
   soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation
   already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by
   natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a
   peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the
   second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated
   at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious
   wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire
   of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the
   use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and
   Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.
   Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,
   according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic
   philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples
   of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met
   with a much more considerable resistance from the old
   believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen
   dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,
   Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and
   synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and
   sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship
   was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There
   presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of
   the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.
   C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the
   restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge
   appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth
   dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge
   of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of
   partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and
   became the source of many advantages as well as of serious
   faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of
   the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the
   time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed
   to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the
   high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.
{1913}
   One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was
   high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time
   (that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold
   dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of
   Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one
   person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more
   it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their
   caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of
   all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by
   the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170
   B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the
   Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus
   Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish
   religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a
   temple of Jupiter Olympius."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew
      in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

   Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with
   awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed
   to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold
   as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple
   was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these
   enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the
   Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the
   race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his
   dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to
   his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,
   and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and
   penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to
   disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be
   treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old
   man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the
   Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his
   commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter
   Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the
   altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to
   Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves
   and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to
   the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was
   everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.
   That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed
   against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a
   general edict was published, condemning to death or torture
   all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree
   was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer
   sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise
   circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to
   the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to
   destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons
   refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this
   terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and
   took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the
   mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs
   continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'
   (Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded
   to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the
   majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,
   Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His
   people, and sent them a deliverer."

      _E. H. Palmer,
      History of the Jewish Nation,
      chapter 7._

JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
   Revolt of the Maccabees.
   Reign of the Asmoneans.
   Rise of Herod.

   The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led
   the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and
   persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of
   the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of
   "its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the
   magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak
   of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had
   five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military
   leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas
   was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence
   came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general
   name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly
   designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had
   the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the
   "Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt
   assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to
   meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation
   which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the
   Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute
   imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an
   expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large
   number of troops. During the king's absence the government of
   the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.
   Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and
   despatched a force under the command of three generals to
   suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the
   hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in
   person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been
   apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and
   was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of
   affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.
   164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the
   indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause
   of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of
   Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of
   rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of
   the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was
   only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His
   father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his
   son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,
   who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on
   the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by
   Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with
   Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting
   Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can
   be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the
   Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus
   Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to
   Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the
   Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of
   their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not
   endure.
{1914}
   In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded
   Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the
   strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.
   Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and
   their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered
   condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept
   honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came
   to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of
   a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to
   the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on
   the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.
   Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was
   established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon
   after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by
   his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed
   the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by
   his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the
   selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for
   Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of
   success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards
   developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,
   while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of
   Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious
   freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which
   afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax
   their efforts till the country was completely independent. The
   Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the
   population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius
   had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless
   barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the
   arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High
   Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an
   army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,
   and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish
   delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an
   alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an
   opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a
   favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged
   the independence of their country. … While these
   negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded
   Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a
   desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.
   C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of
   freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct
   centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the
   treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left
   Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the
   Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it
   was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the
   kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take
   advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.
   About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the
   Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the
   person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.
   C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to
   take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the
   threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,
   was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),
   and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his
   side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately
   outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as
   the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest
   bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from
   Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.
   The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius
   was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of
   the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military
   governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government
   of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.
   Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian
   pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by
   another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an
   ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his
   place.

      _W. D. Morrison,
      The Jews under Roman Rule,
      chapter 1._

   The Asmonean family had now become so established in its
   princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took
   the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of
   King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and
   was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.
   "These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in
   name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,
   the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had
   left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of
   five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty
   wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin
   afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his
   people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a
   civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and
   finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,
   ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his
   rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in
   the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age
   of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish
   power upon the soil of Palestine."

      _J. H. Allen,
      Hebrew Men and Times,
      chapter 10._

   "When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched
   towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far
   as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the
   Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested
   considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the
   Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up
   to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making
   arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to
   repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the
   Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the
   important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the
   territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could
   now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the
   Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa,
   was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted
   rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried
   their arms still further, had not the development of the power
   of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested
   by internal divisions.
{1915}
   The spirit of religious independence and the national
   patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the
   Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and
   even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism]
   gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, …
   proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of
   the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the
   secular government—a community which found its visible points
   of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory
   on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and
   spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the
   great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted
   in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as
   respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical
   college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and
   more ossified into theological formalism and a painful
   ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the
   so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these
   innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and
   conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of
   the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political,
   in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong
   arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of
   the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world,
   and above all from the internal and external strengthening of
   the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times
   of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their
   support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had
   kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two
   sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the
   Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to
   obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother,
   the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not
   merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also
   foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a
   commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first
   of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often
   been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering
   Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch
   than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or,
   according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock
   must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient
   settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of
   trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the
   Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez
   and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their
   ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those
   of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from
   Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
   passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
   still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
   evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
   extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after
   the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not
   too dearly bought at the price of the independence and
   integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the
   Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which
   they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested
   from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it
   was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the
   adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged
   in his capital."

       _T. Mommsen,
       History of Rome,
       book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

   "While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his
   victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had
   conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year
   received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he
   himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to
   Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he
   heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed
   forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this
   strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached
   Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both
   from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his
   favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four
   hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so
   promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather
   because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,
   and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw
   if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans.
   Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised
   the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But
   Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted
   upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which
   Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the
   protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon
   proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He
   himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of
   Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present,
   a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents,
   which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of
   Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus,
   whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw
   his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.
   C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria,
   subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and
   advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There
   he was met at one and the same time by representatives of
   three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus
   appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus
   complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had
   violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his
   conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the
   people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the
   abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old
   theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but
   cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would
   put all things in order when he had accomplished his
   contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all
   parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was
   by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his
   discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had
   accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans.
   Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the
   Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus.
{1916}
   He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the
   neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He
   betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further
   presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey
   would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and
   sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city,
   while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius
   returned without having obtained his object, for the people in
   the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged
   at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately
   advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to
   Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword
   took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together
   on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for
   resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the
   strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the
   south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated
   from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a
   gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost
   impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In
   this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of
   Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would
   or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three
   months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the
   dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his
   troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful
   massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering
   sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their
   office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000
   Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general
   butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C.
   63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the
   very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,
   that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.
   Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into
   which only the feet of the high priest had ever before
   entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the
   temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God
   should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he
   passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were
   beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. …
   The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly
   curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken
   from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of
   the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others;
   also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them.
   All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the
   governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The
   contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II.,
   who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.
   … With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish
   people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we
   reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely
   overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no
   essential change in the internal government of the country. He
   suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and
   gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was
   favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation
   was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the
   Romans."

      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324._

   Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was
   the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,
   Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own
   hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he
   rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the
   eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an
   Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and
   Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who
   was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able
   to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the
   robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,
   and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred
   borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,
   as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished
   himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without
   appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared
   before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by
   Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his
   head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his
   patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed
   him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the
   governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched
   thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with
   difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,
   he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither
   the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at
   Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table
   of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:
   He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled
   haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting
   to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,
   so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and
   promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory
   over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his
   father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the
   unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He
   succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person
   and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the
   Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole
   of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,
   grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,
   added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's
   previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of
   hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran
   Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by
   Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that
   place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed
   Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and
   Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All
   was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed
   himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high
   priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.
{1917}
   He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.
   Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old
   acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring
   hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom
   of Judea upon him."

      _T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume I, page 231._

JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.
   Herod and the Herodians.
   Roman rule.

   Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support
   of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not
   without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in
   June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of
   half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged,
   contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts.
   This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an
   interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell,
   by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the
   Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent
   its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in
   which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The
   frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September,
   B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to
   Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him
   the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for
   him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus
   "restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing
   enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of
   the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra,
   Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the
   tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more
   than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the
   same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by
   making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide
   extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in
   order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the
   desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and
   afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in
   fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under
   Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few
   intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his
   success to that officious attention which displayed the
   greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices
   of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism,
   his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of
   the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to
   be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the
   eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to
   take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend
   in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as
   well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which
   had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens
   enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The
   prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet
   times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted
   of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an
   unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous
   accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod
   was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have
   been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a
   brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious
   ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate
   nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his
   people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature,
   inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish
   historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his
   affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for
   his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in
   adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C.
   25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and
   sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver
   treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he
   bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he
   dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the
   poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent
   help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and
   indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second
   Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian,
   without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the
   unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national
   peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity
   which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in
   later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and
   repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and
   of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the
   successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and
   timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before
   the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and
   incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring
   contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with
   respect to the earlier royal family and to the national
   aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues
   of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous
   flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with
   demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. …
   Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year
   B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of
   Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one
   whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and
   whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people
   disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was
   forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing
   together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the
   city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds
   by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most
   revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's
   brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen
   years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at
   Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old
   family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he
   murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years,
   and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little
   later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become
   objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his
   brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were
   slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander
   and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in
   Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the
   first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and
   with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part
   in the crimes of the family."

      _T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume 1, pages 233-246._

{1918}

   Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most
   generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten
   wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a
   large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing
   a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants
   at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish
   people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family,
   all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small
   consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus,
   eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty
   of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To
   Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee
   and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made
   tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so
   oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed
   by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to
   the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman
   governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus
   became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second
   rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom
   of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth
   remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native
   princes holding office for life and, under reservation of
   their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary,
   came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable
   to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by
   Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the
   seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from
   Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as
   throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military
   force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and
   infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala
   and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These
   troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at
   least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly,
   however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did
   not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories
   adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the
   four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman
   commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a
   weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover,
   when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the
   temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in
   a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native
   authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities
   were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the
   town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and
   the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of
   Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of
   the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with
   the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar
   way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there
   was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the
   Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in
   it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land,
   if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the
   time. To the college belonged the former high priests and
   esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the
   aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme
   spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so
   far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the
   secular representative in particular of the community of
   Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious
   fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a
   spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded
   essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution,
   but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as
   its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than
   belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To
   this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by
   the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the
   Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in
   the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban
   authorities and the common councils. With indifferent
   short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism
   of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means
   transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah
   should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of
   manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly
   affected thereby. This applied in particular to the
   administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman
   burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in
   criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman
   tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But
   civil justice over the Jews remained even after that
   annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice
   over them was exercised by the latter probably in general
   concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of
   death could not be executed by it otherwise than after
   confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those
   arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition
   of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this
   request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements
   along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as
   formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of
   the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of
   images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the
   coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple
   continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under
   penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of
   Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the
   pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration
   of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official
   crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew
   says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign
   maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set
   them aside or violated them. This is the more to be
   recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West
   interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other,
   and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea
   cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of
   all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman
   government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of
   the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,
      book 8, chapter 11._

{1919}

   In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again,
   in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of
   the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and
   won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and
   Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of
   Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added
   Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a
   kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died
   suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of
   a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was
   provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of
   Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in
   Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to
   Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _Josephus,
      Antiquity of the Jews,
      books 15-20._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 2._

JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.
   Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.

   "The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign
   authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and
   which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,
   goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the
   settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of
   Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,
   Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.
   D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity
   from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and
   best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign
   of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:
   Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along
   with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own
   account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus
   is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and
   he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight
   into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall
   hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that
   Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King
   Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of
   two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,
   about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter
   of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian
   era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.
   C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which
   is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;
   according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.
   U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon
   Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his
   book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,
   we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that
   is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars
   was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such
   certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself
   to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the
   part of the Christian community of the approximate point of
   time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in
   question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten
   every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is
   after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all
   legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without
   any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with
   the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the
   birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the
   same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than
   elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on
   the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We
   should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according
   to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and
   more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which
   after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the
   close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the
   most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as
   he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of
   Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical
   computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of
   Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of
   Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite
   rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the
   Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'
   Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the
   death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been
   reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement
   of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the
   Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once
   begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would
   have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the
   Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late
   birth would not only clash with the first statement of the
   Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch
   as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old
   at his death, which in any case took place before the recall
   of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here
   therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the
   writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the
   time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the
   Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as
   about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus
   was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the
   reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds
   for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as
   fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if
   after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth
   year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,
   767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that
   case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years
   backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before
   our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year
   of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim
   our attention in different ways. …
{1920}
   Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the
   forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of
   Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of
   birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch
   as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus
   after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his
   conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the
   first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of
   Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is
   752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree
   with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the
   occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were
   possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back
   beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as
   the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and
   the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of
   the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than
   the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.
   e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one
   reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph
   of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the
   Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk
   Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of
   the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525
   A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that
   this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian
   calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern
   times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and
   chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748
   has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's
   star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm
   for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful
   regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,
   to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning
   of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King
   Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still
   746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year
   748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,
   Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following
   Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching
   great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to
   the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious
   method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod
   must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength
   of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard
   enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,
   probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must
   entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,
   however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our
   traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of
   December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

      _Dr. T. Keim,
      History of Jesus of Nazara,
      volume 2, pages 109-126._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Anderdon,
      Fasti Apostolici,
      introd._

JEWS: A. D. 26.
   Political situation of Judæa
   at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

   "Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of
   Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His
   countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to
   it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long
   vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not
   by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by
   proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He
   associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of
   which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In
   consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties
   presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the
   procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his
   administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of
   Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.
   Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much
   success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible
   with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.
   The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side
   with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very
   limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion
   and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of
   decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had
   lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had
   reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a
   tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted
   himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext
   that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on
   the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his
   choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to
   keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to
   them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came
   to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,
   to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of
   Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not
   exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,
   and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such
   objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the
   temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers
   in the service of the Romans were regarded as the
   representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for
   the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal
   contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on
   the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at
   which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third
   procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in
   the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law
   of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the
   same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather
   than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher
   principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance
   of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact
   which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign
   rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those
   men without patriotism, who think only of using their
   authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the
   peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was
   to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with
   standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,
   for the eagles were worshipped as gods.
{1921}
   Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,
   which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled
   to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into
   desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone
   in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused
   shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the
   emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the
   citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which
   might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was
   received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was
   obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have
   led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object
   of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:
   his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on
   the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that
   it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the
   national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This
   increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a
   purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,
   and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of
   Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the
   country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his
   moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod
   Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from
   the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his
   brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which
   he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating
   defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the
   influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,
   evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners
   was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and
   self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though
   of the family of the vile despots who had sold the
   independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a
   national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and
   which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of
   Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the
   political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was
   placed."

      _E. de Pressensé,
      Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,
      book 3, chapter 1._

JEWS: A. D. 33-100.
   The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY.

JEWS: A. D.66-70.
   The Great Revolt.

   The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors
   who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod
   Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than
   it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the
   Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating
   and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be
   more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,
   conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out
   into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead
   them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under
   extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish
   capital, who were generally controlled by the superior
   prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.
   … But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so
   easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was
   always then, as it has since always been, in a state of
   partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]
   the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the
   tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the
   title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was
   suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain
   certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the
   more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the
   Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the
   king could observe all that passed in that mart of business
   and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,
   he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,
   as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and
   honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out
   his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between
   the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now
   was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new
   feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more
   prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private
   assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are
   recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by
   which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on
   exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.
   … Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had
   omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were
   now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and
   nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to
   seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This
   was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to
   lead him."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 59._

   A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the
   entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of
   the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of
   fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put
   to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day
   and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the
   hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their
   own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and
   Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them
   in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and
   hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly
   slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more
   was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with
   gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest
   enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when
   they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the
   very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of
   Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and
   besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,
   were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to
   the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp
   and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The
   retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army
   with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent
   hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of
   auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our
   limits will not allow us to write. …
{1922}
   The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before
   the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal
   evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The
   events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the
   principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually
   commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in
   April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,
   meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which
   hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and
   Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets
   run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the
   Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews
   and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,
   with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,
   more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the
   Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made
   upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town
   were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so
   that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the
   siege."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,
      chapters 1-2._

   The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by
   Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to
   most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from
   April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans
   forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the
   streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses
   where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps
   of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they
   retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.
   But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some
   places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with
   streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …
   The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,
   which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …
   During the whole siege the number killed [according to
   Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,
   the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the
   adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,
   more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had
   been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those
   who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman
   soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years
   old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed
   among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the
   public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve
   thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the
   metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately
   city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,
   the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a
   ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,
   and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as
   a defence for the Roman camp."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 7._

      _Josephus,
      The Jewish War._

      _A. J. Church,
      Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem._

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period._

JEWS: A. D. 70-133.
   After the war with Rome.
   The state of the surviving people.

   "It might have been expected that, from the character of the
   great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the
   Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,
   verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss
   of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the
   markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.
   … Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to
   offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of
   detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,
   immediately after the war, we have little accurate
   information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of
   life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the
   country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of
   Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the
   province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the
   possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the
   rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the
   country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in
   this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it
   must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,
   by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and
   great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much
   depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,
   the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan
   escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,
   for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without
   resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …
   The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as
   detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian
   and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A
   garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to
   prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and
   religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is
   impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and
   the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation
   could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance
   which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 18 (volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 116.
   The rising in Trajan's reign.

   "Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in
   the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose
   against the imperial government. The rising, although
   undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character
   in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the
   expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,
   to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified
   even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and
   Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they
   conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in
   Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene
   220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus
   put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which
   does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the
   Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in
   the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …
   To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation
   of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano
   since the destruction of the temple. …
{1923}
   The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the
   compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on
   this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That
   Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is
   hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression
   for what took place."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

      See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
   The rising in Hadrian's reign.

   The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought
   him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed
   holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and
   to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred
   in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new
   city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is
   said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a
   fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest
   Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or
   Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed
   by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and
   was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been
   slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in
   the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of
   Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the
   name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who
   founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of
   the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of
   Zion and Moriah."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 65._

   "The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by
   the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents
   on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the
   governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on
   the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no
   pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost
   time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare
   the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far
   from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed
   down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985
   villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,
   since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male
   population was probably everywhere put to death. In
   consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished
   people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not
   as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of
   the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained
   desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did
   not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death
   from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
   The Nation without a country.
   Its two governments.

   "In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before
   the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present
   the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized
   communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch
   of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who
   inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the
   Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid
   their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most
   difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the
   patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its
   recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,
   with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble
   attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects
   and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with
   one mind and one heart to establish their community on a
   settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation
   dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or
   repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing
   themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which
   rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power
   whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the
   Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,
   began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The
   death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the
   war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them
   courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but
   openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The
   Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the
   schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great
   Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and
   finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and
   maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it
   may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an
   ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more
   scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins
   soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his
   cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the
   burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of
   the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be
   clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea
   of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the
   Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during
   all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.
   Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the
   Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.
   … In every region of the West, in every province of the
   Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,
   with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual
   Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with
   honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in
   Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in
   Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly
   rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain
   its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There
   seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.
   Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if
   his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the
   willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the
   Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …
   splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his
   officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed
   as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is
   probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of
   the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,
   was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the
   authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond
   Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19 (volume 2)._

{1924}

JEWS: A. D. 415.
   Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.
   Early Jewish settlements in Europe.
   Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

   "The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as
   we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived
   in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the
   world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a
   separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was
   also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by
   an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the
   synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of
   God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had
   already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are
   known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the
   Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political
   rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.
   They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of
   Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the
   position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks
   of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during
   this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against
   the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this
   hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised
   in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus
   the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before
   the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by
   proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained
   against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were
   happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine
   empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith
   the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The
   heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage
   intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and
   holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,
   gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be
   converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by
   violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal
   sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he
   steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the
   fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as
   a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,
   where the Church was first obliged to make its way
   laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and
   much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before
   Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and
   the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until
   the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration
   of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took
   place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of
   Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,
   however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,
   whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed
   the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in
   Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in
   the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by
   the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King
   Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first
   raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit
   of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over
   the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings
   became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews
   consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly
   only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such
   of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the
   Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in
   France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,
   and France, possesses but special interest, that of their
   brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of
   universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as
   greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.
   … Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews
   as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea
   and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,
   and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.
   … The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is
   buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as
   free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order
   to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.
   The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under
   Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the
   extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000
   of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews
   … were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as
   the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and
   Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

JEWS: A. D. 615.
   Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.
   Sack and massacre.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

JEWS: A. D. 637.
   Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

JEWS: 7th Century.
   General persecution.
   First expulsion from Spain.

   In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman
   Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a
   more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced
   before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about
   this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the
   Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This
   report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite
   their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but
   the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent
   conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited
   the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the
   imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted
   to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an
   end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised
   every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within
   the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced
   conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in
   his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic
   king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in
   forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 4, section 5._

{1925}

   "Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,
   Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,
   within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace
   Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from
   the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a
   premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of
   self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal
   submission."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

JEWS: 7th Century.
   The Epoch of the Geonim.
   The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

   After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the
   followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the
   partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the
   Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and
   rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish
   supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The
   unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded
   privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite
   probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora
   occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There
   were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which
   even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not
   venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar
   relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the
   Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.
   With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish
   officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period
   in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space
   of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and
   Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are
   entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and
   concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the
   officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into
   a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia
   (Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar
   constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him
   stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the
   community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He
   represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.
   He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid
   them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer
   appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove
   about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of
   body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity
   of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two
   chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the
   Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws
   and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by
   allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The
   Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of
   Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of
   the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled
   'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the
   title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference
   over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 4._

JEWS: 8th Century.
   Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

      See KHAZARS.

JEWS: 8th Century.
   Origin of the Karaites.

      See KARAISM.

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.
   Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by
   merciless persecution and expulsion.
   Treatment in Portugal.

   "Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this
   persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any
   Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th
   and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as
   financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;
   in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in
   Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the
   13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any
   other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster
   to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were
   detested by the people; first in one town and then in another
   they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were
   burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them
   in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of
   Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved
   themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a
   few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century
   later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the
   country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition
   at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the
   majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who
   withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from
   170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,
   starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who
   survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under
   Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in
   Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their
   brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as
   the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the
   wealth of the new Christians."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Lea,
      Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,
      pages 437-468._

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 11th Century.
   First appearance of Jews in England.
   Their treatment as usurers.

   "Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to
   the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to
   London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under
   Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign
   we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can
   be no doubt that they were already established in most of the
   chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the
   townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the
   king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,
   save at the king's own bidding.
{1926}
   Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had
   the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed
   be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but
   which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against
   all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually
   appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the
   scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they
   should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no
   such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving
   trade."

      _K. Norgate,
      England Under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   "The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding
   it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain
   the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation
   unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the
   function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth
   century, which was just passing economically out of the stage
   of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of
   architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and
   especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The
   Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess
   dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of
   protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their
   influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that
   no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country
   were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who
   also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …
   The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards
   usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his
   Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other
   pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the
   State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all
   usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,
   his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be
   dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to
   say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'
   wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good
   Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could
   very soon double and treble it, since the absence of
   competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,
   rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …
   The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both
   king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the
   larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it
   plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the
   benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main
   functions and main source of income was selling justice, and
   Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,
   as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the
   events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid
   by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a
   journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,
   in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,
   the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased
   Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters
   and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more
   profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property
   escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of
   Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but
   kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and
   debts of the great financier. He appears to have first
   organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews
   his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these
   quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the
   king claimed from them—again as from his other
   subjects—various contributions from time to time under the
   names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on
   occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable
   discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year
   of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of
   England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,
   which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were
   reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable
   wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the
   rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal
   Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the
   country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's
   treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner
   in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the
   Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to
   bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the
   Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the
   usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into
   his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for
   a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to
   above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which
   they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

      _Joseph Jacobs,
      The Jews of Angevin England,
      introduction._

JEWS: A. D. 1076.
   Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

      See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.
   Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.

   The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the
   wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter
   the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset
   of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the
   notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be
   exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they]
   murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate
   men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children
   and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from
   which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred
   Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were
   overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took
   them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his
   castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their
   way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence.
   At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms
   they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop,
   Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the
   celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their
   property."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 145 (volume 1)._

   The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in
   Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.
   Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and
   humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.
{1927}
   A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in
   Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine
   against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding
   attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard
   went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,
   drove the brutal monk into his convent.

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapters 9 and 11._

      _H. C. Adams,
      History of the Jews,
      chapter 15._

JEWS: A. D. 1099.
   Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

JEWS: 11-17th Centuries.
   Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.

   "It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the
   only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That
   branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride
   or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by
   stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though
   their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in
   after years, they were certainly at the same time a national
   necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the
   race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated,
   persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others
   took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth
   of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants
   were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to
   Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance
   than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first
   crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the
   Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the
   beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights
   and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to
   the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of
   Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding
   this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386.
   Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have
   any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they
   settled in towns they were forced to live in particular
   suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population,
   supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish
   inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid
   all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572]
   resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax
   of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by
   this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000,
   but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was
   increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that
   he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that
   the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the
   state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their
   hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade
   with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which
   were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased
   to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous
   for the peasant."

      _Count Von Moltke,
      Poland:
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 4, chapter 18._

JEWS: A. D. 1189.
   Massacres in England.

   At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of
   England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter
   hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were
   imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King
   Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a
   riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day
   elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then
   only three rioters were punished, for damage done to
   Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of
   persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country
   people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who
   began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to
   preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers
   were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had
   hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and
   rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York,
   the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle.
   Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the
   gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by
   the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of
   men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the
   strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but
   the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and
   addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is
   better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands
   of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every
   man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over
   the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their
   treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd
   indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and
   burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for
   safety in the cathedral."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 32._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. C. Adams,
      History of the Jews,
      chapter 16._

JEWS: 12-15th Centuries.
   Treatment in France.

   In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from
   the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing
   the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length
   this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to
   Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous
   people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of
   insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian
   debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed,
   they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they
   must have had support both at court and in the halls of
   justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them
   as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might
   afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would
   incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his
   dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part
   to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from
   France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by
   stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission.
   St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series
   of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this
   extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a
   talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their
   plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn,
   they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never
   afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

{1928}

JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.
   Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.
   Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.
   Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

   "The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the
   entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to
   perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed
   to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the
   earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon
   it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims
   and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a
   synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair
   the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a
   Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of
   the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all
   the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was
   particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults
   and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at
   a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the
   excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably
   became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who
   naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed
   to interfere, the councils of the various countries made
   amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a
   Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine
   from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that
   all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon
   it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish
   literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews
   being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon
   by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching
   was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable,
   pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual
   bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews
   just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical
   writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes
   and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and
   have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the
   ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once
   baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes
   had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual
   slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor
   Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him
   as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time
   that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the
   successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so
   far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French
   Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century
   this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete
   slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions,
   belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed
   to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do
   with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact,
   constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another;
   the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their
   claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was
   paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

      _J. I. Von Döllinger,
      The Jews in Europe
      (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

JEWS: A. D. 1290.
   Banished from England.

   "At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished
   all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to
   have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell
   connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why
   the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the
   Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of
   income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing
   business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while
   they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he
   was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign
   he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and
   they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans,
   taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the
   ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, period 1,
      page 179._

   The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by
   Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime
   on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular
   parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years
   before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were
   flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled
   there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

      _G. H. Leonard,
      Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I.
      (Royal History Society Transactions,
      new series, volume 5, 1891)._

JEWS: A. D. 1321.
   Persecution of Lepers and Jews.

   "In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe
   that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with
   which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had
   conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with
   their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the
   Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot
   directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said
   that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which
   opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become
   their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its
   manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other
   evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at
   hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among
   the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active
   avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution
   by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned
   alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex,
   and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination.
   In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were
   led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be
   extorted."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 8._

{1929}

   "The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great
   leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich
   Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These
   drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the
   blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after
   having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a
   weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers
   had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king,
   alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily
   returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for
   the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained
   by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the
   Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen
   with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of
   our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to
   be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who
   happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined
   to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt
   indiscriminately, especially in the South."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349.
   Accused of causing the Black Plague.

   On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence
   known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the
   disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews
   were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the
   calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the
   wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands
   of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived
   from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could,
   the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped
   persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is
   said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland
   is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the
   entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that
   monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should
   be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the
   Jews at Avignon."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      History of Agriculture and Prices,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

JEWS: A. D. 1391.
   Massacre and expulsion from Spain.

      See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES;
      also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: A. D. 1492.
   Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 17th Century.
   Toleration in Holland.
   Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

      See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.

JEWS: A. D. 1655.
   Toleration in England by Cromwell.

   "Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at
   Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector,
   Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was
   held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern
   reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four
   Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with
   rumour in those old December days; but must now contract
   themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with
   Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have
   met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning,
   Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human
   mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain
   privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They
   were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be
   allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh
   Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being
   stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England,
   has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little
   Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his
   Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing.
   And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness
   spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so
   well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be.
   But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the
   human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went
   home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private
   sufferance of his Highness."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 9, letter 207._

   "Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of
   the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the
   prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference
   was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its
   deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public
   establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a
   certain number of them to take up their residence in London,
   where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a
   burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort
   of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance
   their safety entirely depended."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
   Condition in England.
   Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

   "The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish
   themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first
   synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not
   appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign
   and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under
   James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the
   sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.
   Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all
   foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,
   and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven
   continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of
   James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien
   duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after
   the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the
   reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately
   negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town
   of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of
   trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of
   religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the
   application. The great development of industrial enterprise
   which followed the long and prosperous administration of
   Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now
   preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at
   this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the
   family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise
   the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident
   Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to
   naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not
   lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax
   manufacture. …
{1930}
   The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was
   an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of
   excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the
   impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of
   the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the
   intellectual and political condition of English public
   opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation
   Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a
   distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon
   England all the curses which Providence had attached to the
   Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill
   England with usurers. … The clergy all over England
   denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally
   passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher
   and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and
   carried its repeal."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
   Persecutions and restrictions in Russia.
   The Pale.

   "The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little
   Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were
   allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians
   and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage
   to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and
   expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were
   anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of
   their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability
   of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely
   opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the
   throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them,
   and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might
   have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was
   too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time
   to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter,
   but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict
   'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,'
   the persecution on economic and social grounds continued
   unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however,
   recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is
   that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the
   great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the
   Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic
   population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The
   rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two
   millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could
   not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose
   boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could
   find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an
   autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that
   of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing
   problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part
   of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to
   keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale.
   Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase,
   has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and
   boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply
   contracted. … To trace these changes would be to
   unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to
   keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's
   solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only
   one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that
   Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the
   eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more
   worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of
   milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed
   to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said,
   'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in
   the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this
   permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years
   were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining
   that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.'
   … The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made
   up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike
   Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale
   as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly
   to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit
   from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a
   year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The
   Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the
   death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new
   era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and
   comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made
   to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young
   Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the
   condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and
   then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of
   inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen
   returned voluminous reports, all, without exception,
   favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports
   were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which
   Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were
   allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to
   remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by
   contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward
   step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by
   utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only
   from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring
   profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following
   Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its
   appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is
   recalled."

      _H. Frederic,
      The New Exodus,
      chapters 4-5._

      See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

JEWS: A. D. 1740.
   Rise of the modern Chasidim.

      See CHASIDIM.

JEWS: A. D. 1791.
   The French Revolutionary emancipation.

   "It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their
   improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of
   good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the
   first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every
   other great political movement passed over as too
   insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.
   Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to
   secularise the State, the other in his policy of
   Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts
   it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short
   space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete
   emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.
   On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the
   abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force
   against them, and thus made them by law what they had
   previously been in heart, citizens of their country.
{1931}
   He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,
   of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of
   religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.
   Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more
   and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there
   that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

      _S. Singer,
      Jews in their Relation to Other Races
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 20)._

JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858.
   Removal of disabilities in England.

   "In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which
   compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress.
   The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two
   centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the
   privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House
   of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to
   all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were
   prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could
   take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 9._

JEWS: 19th Century.
   The Anti-Semite movement.
   Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

   "Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have
   characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century,
   few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a
   deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite
   movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over
   a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the
   most serious religious persecution of the century. It has
   raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the
   Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a
   considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among
   its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France,
   which from the days of the Revolution has been specially
   distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped
   the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the
   occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole
   Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who
   is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living
   political writers, has special qualifications for his task.
   With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating
   to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews
   in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in
   those countries where the persecution has most furiously
   raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different
   degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move
   mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of
   exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from
   trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M.
   Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the
   weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New
   Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader,
   the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place.
   Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and
   infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as
   the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him
   has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other
   lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches
   considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When
   the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with
   the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to
   avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands
   of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur
   Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed
   against the alien people who were undermining the moral
   foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable
   enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The
   cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical
   Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our
   author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive
   nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so
   many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or
   heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being
   into a single definite type. The movement has been still
   further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade
   competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant
   populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands
   conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of
   judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of
   resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry
   continually force him into the foremost rank and he is
   prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The
   tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender
   are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists
   largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when
   capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      Israel among the Nations
      (The Forum, December, 1893)._

   "Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.
   Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year
   all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the
   South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,
   and violence was offered to, those who had no means of
   retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The
   restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most
   ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial
   jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the
   outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the
   Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,
   they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,
   for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,
   not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the
   Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns
   inhabited by Jews, to inquire
   (1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of
   Jews became injurious to the Christian population;
   (2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old
   restrictions;
   (3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct
   of Jews in business.
   The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,
   which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them
   throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary
   application. They were known as laws for the time, and only
   came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the
   Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,
   and pecuniary contributions.
{1932}
   In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of
   Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a
   substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,
   until they have produced evidence of registration in the
   recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews
   cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.
   … The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to
   the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on
   the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground
   between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890
   Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real
   estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto
   applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property
   they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish
   artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,
   with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places
   outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by
   special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even
   then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon
   as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale
   of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the
   Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.
   Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in
   a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.
   Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet
   they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt
   mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews
   from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as
   Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from
   5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were
   expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not
   having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be
   transferred, with their families, to their proper places of
   abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from
   the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in
   Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to
   expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three
   years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.
   Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka
   districts; because they had settled there after the passing of
   the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to
   limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with
   millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has
   declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish
   families, which were established when those provinces were
   incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may
   settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may
   be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,
   without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their
   rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is
   practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not
   upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of
   oppression pine without hope in the world."

      _C. N. Barham,
      Persecution of the Jews in Russia
      (Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144._

      ALSO IN:
      _Persecution of the Jews in Russia:
      issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;_

      _D. F. Schloss,
      Persecution of the Jews in Roumania._

   ----------JEWS: End----------

JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

      See RAJPOOTS.

JEZIREH, Al.

      See MESOPOTAMIA.

JEZREEL, Battle of.

      See MEGIDDO.

JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

JINGOES.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.

JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

JOACHIM I.,
   Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.

   Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.

   Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.

JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

JOANNA,
   Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.

   Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.

   Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.

JOGLARS.

      See TROUBADOURS.

JOHN
   (of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople
   (Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.

   John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.

   John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.

   John, King of England, 1199-1216.

   John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571,
      and 1572-1573.

      In the Netherlands.
      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.

   John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.

   John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.

   John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.

   John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.

   John I., nominal King of France
   (an infant who lived seven days), 1316.

   John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;

   John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;

   John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.

   John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.

   John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.

   John II. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.

   John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.

   John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.

   John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.

   John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.

   John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.

   John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.

   John IV., Pope, 640-642.

   John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.

   John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.

   John V., Pope, 685-686.

   John V. (Cantacuzene),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.

   John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.

   John VI., Pope, 701-705.

   John VI. (Palæologus),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.

   John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.

   John VII., Pope, 705-707.

   John VII.
   (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.

   John VIII., Pope, 872-882.

   John IX., Pope, 898-900.

   John X., Pope, 914-928.

   John XI., Pope, 931-936.

   John XII., Pope, 956-964.

   John XIII., Pope, 965-972.

   John XIV., Pope, 983-984.

   John XV., Pope, 985-996.

   John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.

   John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.

   John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.

   John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.

   John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name),
   Pope, 1276-1277.

   John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.

   John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.

   John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.

   John d'Albret and Catherine,
   King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.

   John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.

   John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.

   John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

   John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.

   John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.

   John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.

   John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.

   John Zimisces, Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.

{1933}

JOHN COMPANY, The.

   A name applied to the English East India Company.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

JOHNNIES.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

JOHNSON, Andrew:
   Military Governor of Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

   Election to the Vice Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

   Succession to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).

   Reconstruction Policy.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY),
      to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

   Impeachment of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).

JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.
   Command of Confederate forces in the west.
   Battle of Shiloh.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

JOHNSTON, General Joseph E.
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

   Command in northern Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

   Command on the Peninsula.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
      to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Command in the west.

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

   Command in Georgia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
      (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   The Atlanta campaign.
   Relieved of command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   Command in the Carolinas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

   Surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).

JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.

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

JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.

JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

JOMSBORG.

   Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in
   the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th
   centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes,
   who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the
   civilization it brought with it," which their country was then
   submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no
   man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman
   might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in
   common."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      pages 366-367._

   "The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or
   'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some
   generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far
   beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the
   opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic
   England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the
   pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves,
   danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country
   Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 5._

   The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of
   the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

JONESBORO', Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

JONGLEURS.

      See TROUBADOURS.

JOPPA.

      See JAFFA.

JOSEPH,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.

   Joseph I.,
   King of Hungary, 1687-1711;
   King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

   Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia,
   and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.

   Joseph Bonaparte,
   King of Naples, 1806-1808;
   King of Spain, 1808-1812.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

JOTAPATA, Siege of.

   The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian
   Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.
   D. 67, and taken.

      _Josephus,
      Jewish War,
      book 3, chapter 7-8._

JOUBERT, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

JOURDAN, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER);
      1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JOUST.

   See TOURNEY.

JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.

JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.

JUAN.

      See JOHN.

JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.

JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

JUDAH, Kingdom of.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.

JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

      See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

JUDGMENT OF GOD.

      See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

{1934}

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

JUGANTES, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

JUGERUM.

   "A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds
   of a statute acre."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1)._

JUGURTHINE WAR, The.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

JULIAN (called The Apostate),
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.
   Restorer of Paganism.

      See ROME: A. D. 361-363.

JULIAN CALENDAR.
JULIAN ERA.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

JULIAN FAMILY, The.

   "The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was
   transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always
   within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of
   the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to
   the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.;
   Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from
   54 to 68."

      _J. C. L. Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 2._

JULIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

JULIAN LAWS, The.

   "Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he
   went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body
   of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges
   Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a
   law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates
   during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder
   of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of
   Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the
   punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the
   popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in
   them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from
   violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who
   had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office
   in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be
   effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be
   bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue;
   laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws
   against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at
   elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De
   repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or
   pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the
   provinces."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 13._

JULIAN LINE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

JULIANUS.

      See JULIAN.

   Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

JULIOMAGUS.
   Modern Angers.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

JULIUS II.,
   Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.

   Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.

   Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.

JULY FIRST.
   Dominion Day.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

JULY MONARCHY, The.

   The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the
   revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and
   1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

JUNIN, Battle of (1824).

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

JUNIUS LETTERS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.

JUNONIA.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

JUNTA.

   A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.

JUNTA, The Apostolic.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

JURISFIRMA, The process of.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JUROIPACH, Fortress of.

   A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of
   the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the
   Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This
   fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the
   usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed
   to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and
   populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering
   raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened
   almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt
   that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 19._

JURY, Trial by.

   "The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the
   Assize of Clarendon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

   … In the provisions of this assize for the repression of
   crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed
   to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four
   from each township, were sworn to present those who were known
   or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by
   ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn
   to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge;
   and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors
   that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps
   brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I.
   witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were
   added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation
   of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became
   simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the
   first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern
   jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of English People,
      chapter 2, section 8._

      See LAW.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 164._

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury._

JUSTICIAR.

   The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first
   the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during
   the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a
   permanent minister of justice and finance.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, page 346._

JUSTIN I.,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.

   Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.

JUSTINIAN I.,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.

   Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

{1935}

JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.

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

JUTES, The.

      See ANGLES AND JUTES;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

JUTHUNGI, The.

      See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.

JUVAVIUM.

      See SALZBURG.

JUVENAL IA, The.

   This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his
   attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and
   the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a
   golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This
   ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the
   emperor, himself, performed.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 53._

JUVERNA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.

      See CAABA.

KABALA, OR CABALA, The.

      See CABALA.

KABALA, Battle of.

      See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KABELJAUWS.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      also, 1482-1493.

KABYLES, The.

      See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.

KADESH.

   A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The
   name signifies "the holy city."

KADESH-BARNEA.

   An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the
   objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai
   to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of
   their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It
   is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their
   wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their
   final move into the land of their longings."

      _H. C. Trumbull,
      Kadesh-Barnea,
      part 1._

   Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees,
   in the Wilderness of Zin.

KADIASKERS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

KADISIYEH, Battle of.

      See CADESIA.

KADMEIA, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

      See BŒOTIA.

KADMONITES, The.

      See SARACENS.

KAFIRS.
KAFIR WARS.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and A. D. 1811-1868;
      also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAH-KWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

KAINARDJI, OR
KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAIRWAN, The founding of.

   Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa
   who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient
   Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing
   in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city,
   thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues
   from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded
   valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have
   cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting
   his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your
   Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan.
   Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and
   opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new
   city a populous and important capital.

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      _A. A. Boddy,
      Kairwan the Holy._

KAISAR-I-HIND.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

KAISER, Origin of the title.

      See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KALEVALA,
KALEWALA, The.

   "To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the
   world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which
   is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the
   Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient
   Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information
   connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the
   customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is
   to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic
   age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed
   themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain
   similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the
   Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are
   possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement
   of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date.
   No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction
   of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years
   since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated
   songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours.
   Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral
   traditions of the people, had already made their appearance,
   though even the first important collection of these, which was
   made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than
   1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the
   epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He
   published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or
   cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent
   poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division,
   though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt
   transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in
   the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the
   Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of
   Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

      _J. Oxenford,
      Kalewala
      (Temple Bar, December, 1860)._

{1936}

   "Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a
   storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it
   is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no
   violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala
   has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the
   two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. …
   Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland
   possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim
   affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a
   back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained
   untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by
   Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to
   Christianity: events which took place gradually between the
   middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries.
   … The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened
   national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and
   customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the
   north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers
   sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These
   runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias,
   to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom
   was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory,
   clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he
   whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala
   contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that
   no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is
   at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology.
   These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the
   degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign
   influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the
   native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a
   thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in
   the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic
   knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest
   over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount
   them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the
   suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task
   of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to
   furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five
   Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later
   research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the
   symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging
   and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally
   ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey.
   He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the
   materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a
   certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this
   unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic,
   although the element of permanence which is most obvious in
   the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here
   conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of
   an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or
   priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes,
   fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards;
   exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale,
   not war, but the common daily business of primitive and
   peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala,
   like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race,
   the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest,
   of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation.
   Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an
   exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have
   seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the
   existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished
   from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are
   produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it
   takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of
   Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have
   been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and
   Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a
   popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its
   literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which
   it contains. … What is to be understood by the word
   'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela'
   is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as
   'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The
   Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.'
   The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of
   Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place
   of the world's end."

      _A. Lang,
      Kalevala
      (Fraser's May, June, 1872)._

   A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by
   John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

      _Project Gutenberg
      Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland—
      Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186_

KALISCH, Battle of (1706).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

KALMUKS, The.

      See TARTARS.

KAMBALU, OR CAMBALU,

      See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KAMBULA, Battle of (1879),

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KANAKAS.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KANAWHA, The proposed State of.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

KANAWHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KANDHS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

   ----------KANSAS: Start--------

KANSAS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KANSAS: A. D. 1803.
   Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.
   Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

   "The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the
   struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal
   of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had
   been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave
   States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State
   settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western
   Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed
   the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants
   not to pass through Missouri.
{1937}
   The first election of a delegate to Congress took place
   November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of
   Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted,
   and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855,
   for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same
   fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met
   at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble
   it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a
   series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death
   for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the
   spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost
   continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri
   endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and
   arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of
   'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies
   were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect
   intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through
   Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and
   Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The
   Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But
   these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious
   for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents
   did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes.
   Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were
   successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers
   was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The
   Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery
   district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the
   former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief
   towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka
   repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as
   the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to
   order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to
   force that body to decide the question, and to form a State
   government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers
   [having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected
   State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The
   Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856,
   the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to
   Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced
   the attempt to form a Free State government, without the
   approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an
   act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all
   persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to
   their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of
   Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the
   Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very
   considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a
   desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the
   year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and
   Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State
   Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once
   dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from
   Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of
   Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to
   some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures.
   By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established
   order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State
   Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again
   dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and
   many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy
   marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature
   quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J.
   Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A
   resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the
   Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive,
   illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new
   Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority
   in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South
   Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this
   Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas
   struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free
   State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far
   as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The
   result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously
   elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on
   to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the
   people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or
   'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received.
   Not being allowed in either event to vote against the
   Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all,
   and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000
   majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an
   election at which the people could vote for or against the
   Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast
   against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of
   receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution
   with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen
   to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit
   it to the people at all. This view was supported by the
   Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans
   and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of
   Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a
   State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the
   bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be
   submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso.
   A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House
   should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large
   grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of
   Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In
   this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a
   law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a
   failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected
   by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a
   Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial
   Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention
   to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in
   July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting
   Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people
   and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress
   refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the
   Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapters 18-19._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. W. Wilder,
      Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several
      Constitutions, etc.)._

      _E. E. Hale,
      Kansas and Nebraska,
      chapters 8-9._

      _S. T. L. Robinson,
      Kansas_

      _J. H. Gihon,
      Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas._

      _F. B. Sanborn,
      Life and Letters of John Brown,
      chapters 7-11._

      _Reports of Select Committee,
      (34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200)._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapters 7-9 (volume 2)._

      _C. Robinson,
      The Kansas Conflict._

      See, also, JAYHAWKERS.

{1938}

KANSAS: A. D. 1861.
   Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.

   "As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of
   Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the
   Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as
   a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State
   Constitution."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, page 185._

KANSAS: A. D. 1863.
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
   The sacking of Lawrence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

   ----------KANSAS: End----------

KANSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAPOHN, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KAPPEL, Battle of (1531).
   The Kappeler Milchsuppe.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

KARA GEORG, The career of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

KARAISM.
KARAITES.

   The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of
   one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine
   was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for
   the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion
   which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the
   Text, or Karaism,"

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 23._

KARAKORUM.

   The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his
   successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated
   near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace
   there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1. pages 155 and 182._

      See, also,
      MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KARKAR, Battle of.

   Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the
   confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian
   neighbors; the latter defeated.

KARL.

      See ETHEL.—ETHELING.

KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

KARMATHIANS, The.

      See CARMATHIANS.

KARNATTAH.

   The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the
   West."

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

      See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

   ----------KARS: Start--------

KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.
   Restoration to Turkey.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.

KARS: A. D. 1877.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

KARS: A. D. 1878.
   Cession to Russia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.

   ----------KARS: End--------

KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

   ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.
   Conquest by Runjet Singh.

      See SIKHS.

KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

   Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to
   Gholab Singh.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

   ----------KASHMERE: Start--------

   ----------KASKASKIA: Start--------

KASKASKIA, French settlement of.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778.
   Taken by the Virginian General Clark.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

   ----------KASKASKIA: End----------

KASKASKIAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KASSOPIANS.

      See EPIRUS.

KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY,
      and, SIOUAN FAMILY.

KATANA, Naval Battle of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

KATZBACH, Battle of.

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

KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

KAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAZAN, The Khanate of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KEARNEYITES.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

      See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

KEDAR, Tribe of.

   "The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the
   Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia.
   They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to
   convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria.
   They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders
   of the desert."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2)._

KEECHIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KEEHEETSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KEEWATIN, District of.

   "In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada]
   erecting into a separate government under the name of the
   District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory
   lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about
   395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic
   colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio
   Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      page 35._

{1939}

KEFT.

      The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.

   ----------KEHL: Start--------

KEHL: A. D. 1703.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KEHL: A. D. 1733.
   Taken by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   ----------KEHL: End--------

KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

KELTS, The.

      See CELTS, THE.

KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KENAI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET,
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

KENITES, The.

      See AMALEKITES, THE.

KENT, Kingdom of.

   Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The
   only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle
   of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

KENT, Weald of.

      See ANDERIDA.

KENT'S HOLE.

   One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully
   explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals.
   It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting._

   ----------KENTUCKY: Start----------

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748.
   First English exploration from Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
   Absence of Indian inhabitants.
   Early exploration and settlement by the whites.
   The colony of Transylvania.

   In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the
   South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a
   sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in
   their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their
   ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern
   Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi
   and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its
   deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them
   a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but
   elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their
   wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee
   River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged
   this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of
   the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to
   Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of
   Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian
   population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants
   of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from
   a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes.
   … As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was
   neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found
   themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the
   savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to
   their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did
   to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George
   Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a
   surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the
   Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a
   mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith,
   explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably
   extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to
   Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more
   parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In
   1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin
   settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One
   of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his
   companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that
   Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of
   Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had
   been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes
   in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground.
   In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a
   land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the
   northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to
   found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty
   companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where
   Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now
   Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on
   June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their
   leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made
   at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy
   abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger
   footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now
   Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln
   County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the
   decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the
   Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the
   Kanawha.

      See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.

   … That the process of possessing the land was going on with
   speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,
   land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the
   new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres
   of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it
   served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made
   it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the
   tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.
   These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of
   Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of
   Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years
   before it received its present appellation. At this time, the
   last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under
   the authority of his majesty King George III., there were
   probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in
   settlements that were intended to be permanent within the
   bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may
   have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which
   preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men
   at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a
   sort of hegemony among the settlements.
{1940}
   On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the
   land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these
   settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of
   nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …
   The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,
   but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its
   institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of
   Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The
   colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about
   17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of
   Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from
   the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that
   dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate
   adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …
   Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of
   the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people
   began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained
   from the company, because, after a time, they learned from
   various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had
   been previously ceded to the English government by the Six
   Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the
   latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement
   signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of
   Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their
   petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The
   proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion
   by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,
   who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to
   the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this
   protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick
   Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the
   efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina
   issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The
   colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia
   took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,
   that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,
   in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel
   Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company
   received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to
   actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia
   Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of
   Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

      _N. S. Shaler,
      Kentucky,
      chapters 5-7._

      ALSO IN;
      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.
   The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.
   The western Territorial claims of Virginia.
   Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.
   A county of Virginia.
   Indian warfare of the Revolution.
   Aspirations towards State independence.

   "In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of
   Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and
   Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They
   withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however,
   without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were
   considerably reinforced by a number of men from North
   Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In
   1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians
   under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of
   Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of
   Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of
   this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt
   at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200
   Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of
   capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and
   delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom
   they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape.
   … After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500
   Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before
   Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine
   days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and
   a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April,
   1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some
   adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands.
   This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by
   the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying
   Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia,
   by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at
   the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could
   locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. …
   The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration
   during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the
   emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of
   the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed
   almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers
   of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into
   three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and
   Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more
   active and shocking than it had ever been in the country
   before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the
   Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the
   Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded
   the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near
   the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with
   Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in
   both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were
   Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and
   hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a
   time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater
   violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with
   the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As
   early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed
   with the necessity of the organization of a regular
   government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate
   and independent State; but their efforts were continually
   perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before
   their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were
   often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if
   she would declare herself an independent State, and although
   the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a
   deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and
   repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional
   independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect
   for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the
   Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as
   an independent State, there were elected and held nine
   Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

      _W. B. Allen,
      History of Kentucky,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Brown,
      Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

{1941}

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and
   its annexation to the Kentucky District.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.
   Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and
   their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.
   Discontent of the settlers.
   Intrigues of Wilkinson.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a
   State.

   "In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after
   some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her
   organization on that condition as an independent state,
   Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the
   confederacy. That application had been referred to the new
   federal government about to be organized, a delay which had
   made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the
   Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being
   over-past, drove back the separatists to the original
   starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia
   Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being
   the third held on that subject: to take the question of
   separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some
   new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which
   the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion
   of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by
   recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which
   met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a
   memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms
   formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth
   Convention was authorized again to consider the question of
   separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to
   fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the
   last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in
   favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as
   the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention
   to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these
   results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791]
   admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above
   mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state
   Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been
   actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for
   the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as
   above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the
   Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the
   emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners,
   nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a
   full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from
   bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone
   of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and
   description should be continued in slavery by the laws of
   Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the
   introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws
   to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Brown,
      The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's
   decisive victory.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798.
   The Nullifying resolutions.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).
   The struggle with Secession and its defeat.
   "Neutrality" ended.

   "In the days when personal leadership was more than it can
   ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the
   teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the
   experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,
   who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The
   practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had
   been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin
   convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to
   organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a
   condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.
   After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature
   together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement
   would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could
   be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower
   house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a
   position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to
   furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a
   proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all
   other States, separate or united, especially the United and
   Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon
   Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated
   this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts
   intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be
   formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,
   but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the
   arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It
   amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to
   take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
   and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that
   'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National
   Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'
   Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the
   National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:
   'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet
   have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I
   know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a
   single substantial reason for it; our Government had never
   oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.
   Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar
   stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a
   Union majority of three to one.
{1942}
   As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to
   President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be
   respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.
   Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him
   that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told
   him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the
   messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To
   strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter
   fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and
   given the command in the State in September. Two months later,
   a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern
   part of the State, organized a provisional government, and
   sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at
   Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats
   in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new
   Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent
   Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,
   including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled
   southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky
   as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation
   was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the
   ranks of both the great contending armies."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _N. S. Shaler,
      Kentucky,
      chapter 15._

      _E. P. Thompson,
      History of First Kentucky Brigade,
      chapter 2._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for
   troops.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).
   Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).
   Bragg's invasion.
   Buell's pursuit.
   Battle of Perryville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July).
   John Morgan's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------KENTUCKY: End----------

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

KERAÏT, The.

      See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

KERAMEIKOS, The.

      See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

KERESAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.

KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

KERMENT, Battle of (1664).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

KERNE.

      See RAPPAREES.

KERNSTOWN, Battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA);
      and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

KERTCH, Attack on (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

KERYKES, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

KHALIF.

      See CALIPH.

KHALSA, The.

      See SIKHS;
      also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.

KHAN.
KHAGAN.

   "'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is
   found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the
   Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its
   original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in
   ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian
   ('Hyk-sos')."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 14, foot-note._

KHAR, OR KHARU, The.

   "The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the
   inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia,
   and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or
   'west.'"

      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone Lore,
      chapter 1._

KHAREJITES, The.

   A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took
   form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to
   the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is
   in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that,
   "believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph,
   nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the
   government should be in the hands of a Council of State
   elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the
   Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they
   continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding
   Caliphs.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note._

KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.

   "This important people, now heard of for the first time in
   Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian
   era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the
   steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made
   raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile
   provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were
   Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been
   ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is
   doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at
   this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 18._

   "After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
   A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the
   Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean
   peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The
   Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and
   flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain
   their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,
   and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the
   people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to
   furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from
   every fur hunt.
{1943}
   With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,
   they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the
   Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse
   religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The
   Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity
   through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the
   land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had
   escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the
   Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,
   physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by
   the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with
   a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances
   under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished
   by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all
   sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.
   Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly
   4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made
   its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of
   the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor
   of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first
   to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …
   founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long
   series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law
   of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the
   throne."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

KHEDIVE.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

KHEMI, OR KEM.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KHITA, The.

      See HITTITES, THE.

KHITAI.
KHITANS, The.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

KHIVA.

      See KHUAREZM.

KHODYA.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

KHOKAND,
   Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).

      See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KHONDS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

  ----------KHORASSAN: Start--------

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
   Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.

   In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of
   Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into
   Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most
   prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very
   thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful
   province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and
   the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost
   incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the
   inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred
   in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by
   shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale
   massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses
   numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000
   according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor
   ("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To
   prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered
   every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of
   men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the
   city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and
   its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and
   they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond
   1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The
   destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then
   a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It
   surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at
   that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat
   suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon
   itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege
   of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole
   week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it
   is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was
   entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu
   Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as
   well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled
   up like a mountain."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, pages 86-91._

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

  ----------KHORASSAN: End--------

KHOTZIM.

   See CHOCZIM.

KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

  ----------KHUAREZM: Start--------

KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).

   "The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy
   deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of
   Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs
   Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan
   race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped
   precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that
   Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian
   monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the
   White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the
   Toorks."

      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapter 10._

KHUAREZM: 12th Century.
   The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,
   or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

   "The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing
   young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes
   in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their
   service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and
   many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high
   influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The
   founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named
   Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He
   rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which
   carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm,
   that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes
   on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and
   on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became
   virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next
   succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the
   Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain
   in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian
   ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was
   formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of
   Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain
   not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son
   extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D.
   1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He
   controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the
   invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the
   Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and
   Azerbaidjan."

      _H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, pages 7-8._

{1944}

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

   In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon
   Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of
   Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is
   represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich
   cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very
   like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy
   deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were
   commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan:
   but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted
   through six months without much progress being made. Jingis
   then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations,
   and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at
   length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha,
   and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it.
   This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans
   and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women
   and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of
   the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then
   submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are
   probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that
   over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 85._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapter 4._

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873.
   Conquest by the Russians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

  ----------KHUAREZM: End--------

KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

KICHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.

KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

KIEL, Peace of.

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

   ----------KIEV: Start--------

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882.
   Capital of the Russian state.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240.
   Destroyed by the Mongols.

   In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating
   march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city,
   known among the Russians as "the mother of cities,
   magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with
   its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty
   churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty
   Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden
   Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian
   princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had
   latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils
   of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt.
   It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was
   taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy:
   the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the
   horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient
   Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During
   the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in
   ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its
   former self."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)_

   ----------KIEV: End--------

KILIDSCH.

      See TIMAR.

KILIKIA.

      See CILICIA.

KILKENNY, The Statute of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).

KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

KIMON, Peace of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

KINBURN, Battle of (1787).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

KINDERGARTEN, The.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.

KING, Origin of the word.

   "Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the
   word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to
   decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or
   whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see
   Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough
   if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a
   whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,'
   'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's
   Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of
   'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but
   the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English
   feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion
   of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea
   which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic
   philology was thrown away."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1)._

KING GEORGE'S WAR.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.

KING MOVEMENT, The.

      See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

KING OF THE ROMANS.

      See ROMANS, KING OF THE.

KING OF THE WOOD.

      See ARICIAN GROVE.

KING PHILIP'S WAR.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675: 1675: and 1676-1678.

KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

   The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.
   of France, frequently called "the War of the League of
   Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and
   France, and received in the former the name of King William's
   War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690;
      CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

KING'S BENCH.

      See CURIA REGIS.

{1945}

KING'S COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

KING'S HEAD CLUB.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).

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

KING'S PEACE, The.

   "The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for
   mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of
   rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in
   its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in
   early England] under the protection of the king. … But this
   position is far from that of the fountain of justice and
   source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole
   safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as
   the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of
   the church was not that of the country at large, a special
   guarantee for those who were under special protection. …
   When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his
   whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of
   which he is the guardian into the closer personal or
   territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is
   now the king's peace. … The process by which the national
   peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it
   is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all
   peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise
   again at the proclamation of the new."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Howard,
      On the Development of the King's Peace
      (Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3)._

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Oxford Lectures, 3._

      See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

  ----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.
   The building of Fort Frontenac.
   La Salle's seigniory.

   In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally
   superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of
   Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of
   Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the
   explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with
   surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and
   half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle,
   he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to
   maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

      _F. Parkman,
      La Salle,
      chapter. 6._

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758.
   Fort Frontenac taken by the English.

         See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

  ----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------

KINSALE, Battle of (1601).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

KINSTON, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

KIOWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.

KIPCHAKS, The.

   "The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The
   name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the
   country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. …
   A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht
   Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south
   by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants.
   Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the
   Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were
   known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the
   Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great
   section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. …
   They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of
   the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal
   by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very
   persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is
   very probable that they became an important element in the
   various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of
   Kipchak."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 17._

      See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRIRI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

   See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

KIRKE'S LAMBS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

KIRKI, Battle of (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

KIRRHA.

      See DELPHI.

KISSIA.

      See ELAM.

KIT KAT CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS.

KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.

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

KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

   "Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought
   by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known
   'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are
   heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible
   molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle,
   mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones
   of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and
   likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together
   with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the
   coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the
   Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the
   borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary
   in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150
   to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. …
   The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae),
   who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the
   conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had
   accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe.
   … Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other
   countries."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      chapter 15._

KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

   The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial
   monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

KITTIM.

   The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.

      See, also, JAVAN.

KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

      See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

{1946}

KLAMATHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KLEINE RATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

KLEOMENIC WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

KLERUCHS.

   "Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory
   [of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in
   the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506].
   The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as
   Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the
   wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors
   probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and
   Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter
   extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their
   power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer
   citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population
   either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs
   (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not
   lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not
   colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a
   totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to
   the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by
   Rome."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 3, chapter 18._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.

KNECHTE, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

KNIGHT-SERVICE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Orders of, and their modern imitations.
   Alcantara.

      See ALCANTARA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   American Knights.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Avis.

      See AVIS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Bath.

      See BATH.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Black Eagle:
   A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of
   Brandenburg, in 1701.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Blue Ribbon.

      See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Brethren of Dobrin.

      See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Calatrava.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;
   also a Portuguese Order.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of
   Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;
   also a Turkish Order

      See CRESCENT.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Ecu.

      See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King
   Christian V.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Garter.

      See GARTER.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Circle.

      See GOLDEN CIRCLE.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Fleece.

      See GOLDEN FLEECE.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Horseshoe.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Guelphs of Hanover.

      See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Holy Ghost.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Hospitallers.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by
   Frederick William III.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Iron Crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Legion of Honor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Lone Star.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Malta.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Maria Theresa.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   La Merced.

      See MERCED.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Mighty Host.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Our Lady of Montesa.

      See OUR LADY, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Rhodes.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Round Table.

      See ARTHUR, KING.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Andrew: a Scotch Order

      See ST. ANDREW;
      also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Jago or Santiago.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. James of Compostella.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two
   Sicilies, in 1738.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Lazarus.

      See ST. LAZARUS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Louis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Michael.

      See ST. MICHAEL.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Michael and St. George.

      See ST. MICHAEL, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Stephen.

      See ST. STEPHEN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   St. Thomas of Acre.

      See ST. THOMAS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Santiago.

      See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Seraphim.

      See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sons of Liberty.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Southern Cross.

      See SOUTHERN CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Star.

      See STAR.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Star of India.

      See STAR OF INDIA.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Starry Cross.

      See STARRY CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Swan.

      See SWAN.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sword: a Swedish Order.

      See SWORD;

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Sword: a German Order.

      See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Templars.

      See TEMPLARS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Teutonic.

      See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The Tower and Sword.

      See TOWER AND SWORD.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   Victoria Cross.

      See VICTORIA CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The White Camellia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of
   Tuscany, in 1814.

KNIGHTHOOD:
   White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus
   IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

KNIGHTS.

   See CHIVALRY;
   also, COMITATUS.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

   "The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does
   not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the
   number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner:
   that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed
   of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which
   contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen
   during a whole year."

      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      Essay on Chivalry_

      _R. T. Hampson,
      Origines Patriciœ,
      page 338._


{1947}

KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

   "The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner,
   and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a
   gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a
   penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the
   penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts,
   was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the
   side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear.
   These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated.
   Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field
   of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his
   standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says,
   are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's
   army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of
   creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of
   four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to
   whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle,
   became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there
   would be no such ceremony necessary."

      _R. T. Hampson.
      Origines Patriciœ,
      chapter 11._

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

   During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the
   practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain
   number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser
   baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of
   attending the council in person, but which had become more
   neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In
   theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called,
   were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the
   necessity of holding their election in the County Court
   rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically
   impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of
   freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye'
   of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From
   the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the
   knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage,
   but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the
   whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share
   in the government of the realm."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 4._

   The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the
   origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The
   representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite
   distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the
   shire in the development and establishment of the English
   Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of
   England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence
   and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the
   victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the
   shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they
   were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they
   were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they
   were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm
   which were coeval with the historical existence of the people
   of England, and the interests of which were most directly
   attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY
      STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.

   ----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).
   Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union
   forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December).
   Longstreet's siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER; TENNESSEE).

   ----------KNOXVILLE: End--------

KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.

KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOASSATI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

KOLARIANS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

KOLDING, Battle of (1849).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

KOLIN, Battle of.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.

KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

KOMANS
COMANS
CUMANS, The.

      See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS;
      also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

KOMORN, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

KONIEH, Battle of (1832).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

KOORDS
KURDS, The.

      See CARDUCHI.

KORAN, The.

   "The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after
   all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's
   meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is
   not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular
   scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which
   Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the
   Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the
   slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long
   fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the
   end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not
   even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph],
   we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing
   copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his
   own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then
   of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been
   lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why
   each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to
   conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively
   worshipped."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 4._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      The Coran._

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 2._

      _The Koran;
      translated by G. Sale._

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

KORASMIANS, The.

      See KHUAREZM.

{1948}

KOREISH, The.

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

  ----------KORKYRA: Start--------

KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

   The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast
   of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore
   in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that
   name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by
   the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse.
   … The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the
   residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact
   that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan
   marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa
   had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third
   statement represents the Liburnians as the prior
   inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the
   Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who
   long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the
   Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the
   time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it
   was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement
   at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for
   facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was
   further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period
   altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully
   justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which,
   however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city,
   was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and
   continued so from an early period throughout most part of the
   three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the
   long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it
   appears that four considerable settlements on this same line
   of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas
   and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic
   Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called
   Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some
   distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern
   Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium
   and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the
   Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra,
   Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura],
   Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from
   the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other,
   though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race
   and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 23._

      See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.

KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.
   Quarrel with Corinth.
   Help from Athens.
   Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

KORKYRA: B. C. 432.
   Great sea-fight with the Corinthians.
   Athenian aid.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432.

KORKYRA: Modern history.

      See IONIAN ISLANDS;
      and CORFU.

   ----------KORKYRA: End----------

KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOS.

      See Cos.

KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.

   A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the
   mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by
   Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 94._

KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KOSSUTH: In America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.

KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

KOTZIM.

      See CHOZIM.

KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

KOYUNJIK.

      See NINEVEH.

KRALE.

      See CRAL.

KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

KRASNOE, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KRETE.

      See CRETE.

KRIM, The Khanate of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KRIM TARTARY.

      See CRIMEA.

KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.

      See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.

KRISSA.
KRISSÆAN WAR.

      See DELPHI.

KRONIUM, Battle of.

   See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KROTON.

      See SYBARIS.

KRYPTEIA, The.

   A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta
   by the ephors.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 6._

KSHATRIYAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KU KLUX KLAN, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KUFA, The founding of.

      See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.

KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.

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

KULTURKAMPF, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

KUNBIS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KUNERSDORF, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514.
   Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

KURDS, OR KOORDS.

      See CARDUCHI, THE.

KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.

KURFÜRST.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

KURUCS, Insurrection of the.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

KUSAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

{1949}

KUSH.
KUSHITES.

      See CUSH.—CUSHITES.

KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KUTCHINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KYLON, Conspiracy of.

   See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.

   The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to
   themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons,
   meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of
   the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the
   occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the
   Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as
   Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of
   Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria
   was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in
   the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet
   established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as
   we do."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 4._

   The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to
   denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as
   distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it
   does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the
   name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the
   ancient Cimbri.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.

KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.

      See CYNOSSEMA.

KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.

   One of the three races of people who inhabited the
   Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian
   conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the
   Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an
   independent population. They occupied the larger portion of
   the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or
   Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian
   border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines
   rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long
   subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of
   their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 4._

KYRENE.

      See CYRENAICA.

KYZICUS.

      See CYZICUS.

LABARUM, The.

   "The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the
   so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance
   with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was
   attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and
   his children were woven. To the point of the lance was
   fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and
   the sign of the cross."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 20._

      See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.

LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

LABOR ORGANIZATION.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

LABRADOR, The Name.

   "Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the
   circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a
   cargo of Indians for slaves."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

LABYRINTHS.
MAZES.

   "The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of
   later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes,
   present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which
   hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it
   appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into
   several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of
   caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings,
   tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf,
   and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. …
   Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia
   in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by
   Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the
   observations of modern travellers is supposed to have
   consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the
   catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however,
   whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of
   architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was
   without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in
   Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who
   describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of
   twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which
   the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles
   were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which
   last only he was permitted to enter."

      _E. Trollope,
      Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths
      (Archaeological Journal, volume 15)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus,
      History,
      book 2, chapter 148._

LA CADIE,
ACADIA.

      See NOVA SCOTIA.

LACEDÆMON.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

LACONIA.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACONIA, the American Province.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

      See LAKE DWELLINGS.

LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

LADIES' PEACE, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.

LADISLAUS I. (called Saint),
   King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.

   Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.

   Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.

   Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman),
   King of Hungary, 1272-1290.

   Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous),
   King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.

   Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),
   King of Hungary, 1440-1444;
   King of Poland, 1434-1444.

{1950}

LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.

   Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between
   Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226.
   The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in
   Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened
   by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades,
   of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was
   slain.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62._

LADY, Original use of the title.

   "Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word
   "lady" comes, was the highest female title among the
   West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      volume 1, note F._

LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

   By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called
   Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover
   England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

LÆNLAND.

   "Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its
   holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,'
   held by free cultivators."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 11._

LÆTI.
LÆT.
LAZZI.

   "Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were
   forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in
   order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace
   the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that
   they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public
   needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute,
   and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a
   semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military;
   they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the
   cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times
   by the name of Læti or Liti."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 8._

   "There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl,
   ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of
   Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the
   lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of
   German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were
   'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of
   ancient British population who came between the free wealh and
   the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies
   condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish
   læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of
   the ceorl being 200."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1)._

LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY),
      and (MAY-OCTOBER).

LAFAYETTE:
   And the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).

LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LAGIDE PRINCES.

   The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian
   general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its
   princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed
   father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

LAGOS, Naval Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

LAGTHING.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

LAKE DWELLINGS.

   "Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet
   been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland,
   described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has
   arranged them in three groups, according to the character of
   their substructure.

   [1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he
   tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland
   and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles
   of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire,
   sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by
   tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven
   into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the
   shore. …

   [2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction
   between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in
   the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into
   the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon
   arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed
   of the lake.' …

   [3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third
   group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of
   successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up
   from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the
   lake-level. …

   Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of
   Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,
   Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and
   Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather
   artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      pages 369-372._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Keller,
      Lake Dwellings._

      _R. Munro,
      Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings._

      _E. P. S.,
      Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3)._

LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
      and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

LAMAS.
LAMAISM.

   "The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken
   place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last
   in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only
   in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,
   the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its
   doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the
   only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and
   acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,
   civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the
   first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately
   known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and
   the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy
   scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of
   the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the
   monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the
   martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant
   after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.
   …
{1951}
   As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for
   supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as
   a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,
   startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their
   own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier
   proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419
   sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

      _T. W. Rhys Davids,
      Buddhism,
      chapters 8-9._

   "Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound
   darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant
   and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes
   called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of
   Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and
   to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia,
   Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to
   understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or
   wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate
   them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The
   various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily
   described, and only a general idea of them can be given. …
   First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk,
   called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we
   have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we
   have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who
   has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief
   monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot.
   … Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living
   re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints
   and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara
   Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also
   a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest
   Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are
   supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa,
   and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles
   distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that
   is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as
   great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in
   the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the
   names of the Tashi Lama."

      _Sir M. Monier-Williams,
      Buddhism,
      lecture 11._

   "Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D.
   1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made
   considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he
   raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of
   the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the
   name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of
   Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of
   Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the
   supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal
   power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and
   Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the
   origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible
   that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications
   with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a
   religious organisation after the model of the Romish
   hierarchy."

      _Abbé Huc,
      Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet,
      volume 2, page 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbé Huc,
      Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China,
      volume 2._

      _W. W. Rockhill,
      The Land of the Lamas._

LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

LAMBETH, Treaty of.

   A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain
   sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the
   Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently
   to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance
   and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of
   Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of
   Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young
   son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a
   decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the
   contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of
   Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the
   Charter itself.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2)._

LAMEGO, The Cortes of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LAMIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

LAMONE, Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LAMPADARCHY, The.

      See LITURGIES.

LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.

   "The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office
   more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present
   usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when
   the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from
   the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated
   with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the
   county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties,
   these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who
   is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the
   Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly
   light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the
   maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is
   accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any
   special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually
   the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is
   desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for
   whom no other office of equal rank or importance is
   available."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 8._

LANCASTER, House of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.

LANCASTRIANS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

LANCES, Free.

   With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English
   mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of
   the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance'
   being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried
   a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on
   foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held
   as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 2, page 144._

LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA:
      A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.

{1952}

LAND LEAGUE, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

LANDAMMANN.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

   ----------LANDAU: Start--------

LANDAU: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703.
   Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.

LANDAU: A. D. 1704.
   Taken by the Allies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

LANDAU: A. D. 1713.
   Taken and retained by France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------LANDAU: End--------

LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

LANDFRIEDE.
FEHDERECHT.
THE SWABIAN LEAGUE.
   "Landfriede—Peace of the Land.

   The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous
   and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is
   liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace'
   means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in
   mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special
   act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and
   established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis,
   or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this
   abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The
   first energetic measure of the general government to put down
   private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The
   Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or
   injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration,
   addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party
   would be his foe, and that of his helpers and
   helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate
   description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation
   or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so
   great as is commonly imagined."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81._

   "The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the
   immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as
   clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish,
   but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost
   everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state,
   could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble
   against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor
   himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts
   were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which
   should have powers that would operate to restrain these
   private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could
   not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To
   attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a
   league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which
   was destined to be better observed than most preceding
   confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten
   years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public
   tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been
   regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector,
   no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor
   himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector,
   was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the
   Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates,
   three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning,
   or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns
   was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of
   knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional
   strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the
   confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of
   two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It
   maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000
   cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of
   tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be
   formed from the fact that, in a very short period,
   one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful
   offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich,
   were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for
   their infraction of the public peace."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      volume 2, pages 281-283._

   The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in
   the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the
   Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to
   enforce its decrees.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.

   ----------LANDRECIES: Start--------

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647.
   Spanish siege and capture.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655.
   Siege and capture by Turenne.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the Allies.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

   ----------LANDRECIES: End--------

LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809, (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANDSQUENETS.

   "After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D.
   1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name
   of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were
   native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military
   estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and
   who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with
   long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns
   and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline,
   and retained them under their standards after the conclusion
   of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were
   substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles
   V."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 2, page 183._

LANDSTING.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES
      (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

LANDWEHR, The.

      See FYRD.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

LANGOBARDI, The.

      See LOMBARDS.

LANGPORT, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{1953}

LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LANGUE D'OC.

   "It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from
   the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin
   which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did
   not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the
   Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or
   'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,'
   he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,'
   or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said
   'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words
   gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and
   'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France
   were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead
   of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called
   the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a
   province of France."

      _C. F. Keary,
      Dawn of History,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Hueffer,
      The Troubadours,
      chapter 1._

      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      The Romance Languages,
      page 52, and after._

LANGUEDOC.

   When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions
   of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the
   most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which
   had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania
   and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by
   which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc'
   was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave
   a definite geographical name only to the region between the
   Rhone and the Garonne.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229;
      also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER),
      1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

   ----------LAON: Start--------

LAON:
   The last capital of the Carolingian kings.

   The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the
   modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from
   Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole
   dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle
   with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The
   "King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants
   are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy
   which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been
   united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his
   rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a
   capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of
   those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, part 2, chapter 4,
      parts 1-2 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

LAON: A. D. 1594.
   Siege and capture by Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LAON, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

   ----------LAON: End--------

LAPITHÆ, The.

   A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,
   in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in
   Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the
   Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 1._

LA PLATA, Provinces of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.

LARGS, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

LARISSA.

   There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor
   called Larissa.

      See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.

LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);
      and (JULY-DECEMBER).

LA ROCHELLE.

      See ROCHELLE.

LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.

      See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

LAS CRUCES, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

LASSI,
LAZZI, The.

      See LÆTI.

LASWARI, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

LATERAN, The.

   "The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family,
   whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards
   became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was
   given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation
   which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first
   basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran
   was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The
   modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana
   by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a
   hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 13._

LATHES OF KENT.

   "The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of
   nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in
   other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish
   'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

LATIFUNDIA.

   The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed
   up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times,
   were called Latifundia.

LATIN CHURCH, The.

   The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as
   the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox
   Church of the East.

LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

      See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.

LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

{1954}

"LATIN NAME," The.

   "We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of
   Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin
   name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits,
   and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities
   scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of
   Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not
   that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the
   cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by
   extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman
   people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman
   government had resolved that, in their political relations,
   they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and
   the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which
   they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically
   to a lower condition than that which they had received as
   their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities
   of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws
   and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were,
   like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of
   the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that
   they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor
   had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But
   they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left
   behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family
   there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise;
   the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or
   distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a
   Roman citizen."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 41._

LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

LATIUM.
THE OLD LATINS.

   "The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the
   scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly
   formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of
   mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil
   on which was to be decided the question to what people the
   sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on
   the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form
   part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range
   rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from
   the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of
   the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary
   of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction
   terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its
   boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but
   few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly
   merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus
   enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the
   'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the
   Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and
   there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep
   limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east,
   and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well
   as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome;
   others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become
   converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most
   important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every
   side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain
   and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to
   history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were
   subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin
   communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins'
   ('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the
   district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central
   plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the
   Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose
   inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was
   possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always
   to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the
   northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time
   when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the
   south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian
   stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no
   longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the
   central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of
   the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of
   about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present
   canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it
   appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte
   Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously
   flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and
   formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is
   everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though
   often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground.
   These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface
   lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations
   proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic
   substances which they contain engender that noxious
   fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the
   district as it taints it at the present day."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.

LATT, OR LIDUS, The.

      See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

LAUDER BRIDGE.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

LAUDERDALE, Duke of.
   His oppression in Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

LAURAS.

   "The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the
   hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary
   use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate
   cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a
   superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and
   last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their
   common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The
   origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is
   another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an
   alley or narrow court."

      _I. G. Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      pages 38-39._

{1955}

LAUREATE, English Poets.

   "From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have
   elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held
   the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they
   were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of
   Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time
   without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not
   always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a
   few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly
   worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John
   Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred
   Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears
   to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the
   office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable
   antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was
   an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held
   aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what
   foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the
   Poets is doubtful."

      _W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8)._

   The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with
   the dates of their appointment:

   Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;
   Sir John Gower, 1400;
   Henry Scogan;
   John Kay;
   Andrew Bernard, 1486;
   John Skelton, 1489;
   Robert Whittington, 1512;
   Richard Edwards, 1561;
   Edmund Spenser, 1590;
   Samuel Daniel, 1598;
   Ben Jonson, 1616;
   Sir William Davenant, 1638;
   John Dryden, 1670;
   Thomas Shadwell, 1688;
   Nahum Tate, 1692;
   Nicholas Rowe, 1715;
   Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;
   Colley Cibber, 1730;
   William Whitehead, 1757;
   Thomas Warton, 1785;
   Henry James Pye, 1790;
   Robert Southey, 1813;
   William Wordsworth, 1843;
   Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

      _W. Hamilton,
      The Poets Laureate of England._

LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.

   These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time
   by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large
   revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens.
   It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division
   that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made
   Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the
   southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far
   from the promontory of Sunium.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 39._

LAUSITZ.

      See BRANDENBURG.

LAUTULÆ, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

   ----------LAW: Start----------

LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the
      New York University Law School.]

   The subject is here treated with reference to the history of
   the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,
   rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are
   discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of
   law thus considered which enter into our present systems are
   given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,
   such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated
   in the references placed at the end of this article:

   ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.
   Law as to Shipwrecks.

   "The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt
   as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to
   renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the
   rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were
   too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance
   of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the
   unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when
   the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,
   the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the
   continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the
   inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all
   navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their
   shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry
   or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who
   reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to
   repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the
   highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his
   death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of
   Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction
   of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked
   persons and property were placed under the special protection
   and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death
   without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

      _James Kent,
      International Law,
      edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.
   Jurisdiction.

   The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the
   Lord High Admiral of England.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.
   Jurisdiction.

   "The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief
   Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the
   Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long
   controversy between these Courts as to their relative
   jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

      _Benedict's American Admiralty,
      3d edition, page 41._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.
   Tide-mark.

   The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as
   part of the sea, when the tide is in.

      _Erastus C. Benedict,
      American Admiralty, 3d edition,
      by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,
      citing Sir John Constable's Case,
      Anderson's Rep. 89._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.
   United States Judiciary Act.

   The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to
   all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are
   navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons
   burthen."

      _Judiciary Act,
      United States Stat. at Large,
      volume 1, page 76._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.
   Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.

   "Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,
   introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,
   the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of
   Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine
   ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These
   authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],
   and from that time a new direction was given to English
   studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,
   communicated to forensic investigations.
{1956}
   Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now
   Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have
   been read and admired in every region of the republic of
   letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most
   enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned
   out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the
   bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with
   the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a
   thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which
   concern the great social interests of mankind."

      _James Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 5, lecture 42._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.
   Jurisdiction.

   The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty
   some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common
   Law Courts.

      _Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
      page 56._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.
   Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.

   "It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than
   fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English
   courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt
   water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in
   1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the
   Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the
   navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of
   this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851
   that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the
   Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake
   Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and
   repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do
   with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution
   upon Federal courts."

      _Lyman Trumbull,
      Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,
      volume 27, page 324._

      See, also
      _Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.
   Division of Loss in case of Collision
   settled by Judicature Act.

   "The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision
   each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts
   the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty
   of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict
   between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an
   end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.
   25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to
   have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …
   There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive
   injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from
   recovering more than half his loss from one of the two
   wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in
   an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the
   enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done
   by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in
   operation with the approval of the shipping community for at
   least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;
   and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the
   Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its
   very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect
   to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is
   widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of
   shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are
   all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

      _R. G. Marsden,
      Two Points of Admiralty Law,
      Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 2, pages 357-362._

   For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their
   dates,

      See
      _Benedict's Am. Admiralty,
      pages 91-97,_
      and
      _Davis' Outlines of International Law,
      pages 5, 6, &c._

   ----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------

   ----------COMMON LAW: Start----------

Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]

COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
   Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.

   "It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown
   to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in
   their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the
   radical distinction between the members or judges composing a
   court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned
   to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of
   the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded
   the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found
   of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      page 45._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 630.
   The first Written Body of English Law.

   "The first written body of English Law is said to have been
   promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,
   and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

      _Joseph Parke,
      History of Chancery,
      page 14._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066.
   The King's Peace.

   1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect,
   connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the
   peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the
   householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the
   offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity
   of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who
   were about his business, or specially under his protection;
   but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the
   king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the
   kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended
   to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the
   establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised
   on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from
   and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the
   party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for,
   as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true,
   formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence
   only in the present century; but in its legalized historical
   shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English
   institution.

      _Sir Frederick Pollock,
      Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
      page 205._

      See, also, KING'S PEACE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066.
   Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.

   "When the Normans came into England they brought with them,
   not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than
   had been known there, but also a certain product of the
   exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman
   dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public
   administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by
   summoning together by public authority a number of people most
   likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and
   calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of
   the modern jury. …
{1957}
   With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial
   duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies
   in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and
   unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the
   wonderful growth of the other."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
   Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.

   "The same remark which has already been made, with reference
   to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the
   Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years
   after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a
   feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not
   have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which
   were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. …
   Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the
   rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in
   the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose,
   of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn
   testified to the truth of the facts within their own
   knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what
   took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a
   limited number of probi homines to represent the community,
   and give testimony for them."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 82-90._

      See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.
   The Curia Regis.

   "As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both
   civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court
   it heard all causes in which the king's interests were
   concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief
   of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local
   tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court
   it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the
   local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice.
   By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king
   could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to
   be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his
   advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special
   writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and
   through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds
   its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy
   the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law
   which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The
   curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the
   king's absence."

      _Hannis Taylor,
      Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
      part 1, pages 245-246._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215.
   Purchasing Writs.

   "The course of application to the curia regis was of this
   nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king
   a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon
   he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced
   his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and
   determine his claim."

      _Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law,
      volume 1, page 267._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077.
   Trial by Battle.

   "The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any
   account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of
   Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was
   settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses …
   who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and
   battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the
   Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or
   perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses
   were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other.
   … Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular
   courts and between contending private parties, the battle was
   often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and
   unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly
   in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the
   recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the
   jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon
   to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel.
   It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought
   about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before
   reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England,
   sometime after he became king, in 1154."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67)._

      See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa).
   Origin of Statutes of Limitation.

   "Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as
   the period within which legal proceedings to recover real
   property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular
   expedient of making the period of limitation run from
   particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that
   of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a
   descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.
   114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of
   Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.
   Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the
   last return of King John into England; writs of novel
   disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea
   into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville
   (lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last
   voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time
   necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different
   epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.
   1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within
   which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in
   which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King
   Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that
   king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than
   eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the
   reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a
   real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the
   period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,
   legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to
   which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be
   required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries
   and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of
   actions to recover real property having long become
   inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to
   the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased
   practically to afford any protection against antiquated
   claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again
   interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period
   of limitation from some particular event or date, took the
   wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the
   limit within which a suit should be entertained. …
{1958}
   It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption
   of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to
   run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and
   hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however
   interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete
   claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as
   parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges
   set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to
   atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first
   laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a
   lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had
   existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but
   happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in
   that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a
   presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support
   possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested
   with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable
   theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,
   during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might
   presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to
   make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation
   of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be
   told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound
   to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although
   neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a
   belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …
   When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards
   its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in
   respect of real property and of certain specified easements,
   fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as
   establishing presumptive rights."

      _C. J. Cockburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot,
      L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;
      s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).
   The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

   "We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men
   meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of
   God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between
   them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the
   king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult,
   six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned
   than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is
   distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same
   feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every
   man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry
   may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process
   against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in
   a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had
   to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical
   stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the
   same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read,
   on the authority of several modern cases in various States of
   the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not
   obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last
   extremity.'"

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135.
   Abeyance of the King's Peace.

   "The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his
   accession. But, though generalized in its application, it
   still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time.
   The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not
   formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined
   to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The
   fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not
   the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and
   perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of
   William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities
   derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other
   consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of
   the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words
   of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno
   1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every
   man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in
   this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the
   inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the
   time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It
   was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the
   King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and
   the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them
   to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name
   forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine
   of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards
   heard of."

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace
      (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189.
   Origin of Unanimity of Jury.

   "The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be
   explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign
   of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree
   in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this
   unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to
   make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called,
   indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not
   imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions
   of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were
   to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to
   agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of
   the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least,
   and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in
   dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a
   written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove
   payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a
   jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid
   which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all
   countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept
   as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury
   system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of
   witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within
   their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that
   twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of
   evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in
   dispute."

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury,
      chapter 11, section 1._

{1959}

A. D. 1154-1189.
   Reign of Law initiated.

   "The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The
   administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine
   under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution,
   enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of
   reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of
   business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign
   to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men
   and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization
   which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

       _W. Stubbs,
       Select Charters of English Constitutional History,
       page 21._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176.
   Trial by Assize.

   "The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing
   statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164
   [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if
   any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a
   particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged
   to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief
   justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful
   men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A.
   D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should
   refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased
   ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of
   twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the
   day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same
   manner in cases of novel disseisin."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      chapter 6, section 3._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa).
   Justice bought and sold.

   "The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and
   he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was
   not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that
   corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily
   not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's
   court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice
   was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this
   was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes
   did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local
   courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own
   previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but
   it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only
   explanation of which appears to be that in every case the
   king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in
   a position to understand that famous clause of the Great
   Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay,
   right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a
   century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in
   that time, you see, the great advance had been made of
   regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of
   right. And besides this clause there is another which provides
   for the regular sending of the king's judges into the
   counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular
   administration of a uniform system of law throughout England.
   What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England
   a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat;
   it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at
   Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite
   obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject
   and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should
   be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in
   some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of
   justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm,
   became established at Westminster."

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,
      page 209._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166.
   Assize of Clarendon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176.
   Justices in Eyre.

   "It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre
   (justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by
   Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a
   great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm
   into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go
   each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But
   although the formal division of the kingdom into separate
   circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is
   no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I.,
   a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different
   shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus
   represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and
   county courts."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 81-82._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189.
   Legal Memory.
   Its effect.

   "No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be
   some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is
   to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly
   for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the
   right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for
   instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were
   till recently received by the officers as ancient fees
   attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700
   years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of
   Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and
   oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol
   did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and
   that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at
   that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the
   mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every
   ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the
   claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of
   which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in
   1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of
   such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been
   found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in
   favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it
   was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was
   immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the
   contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of
   fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained
   the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was
   stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1
   C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered
   the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that
   was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of
   Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;
   33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;
   it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his
   Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the
   time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it
   the only title of prescription, but that others have said
   'that there is also another title of prescription that was at
   the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,
   and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath
   been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the
   contrary.
{1960}
   And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a
   man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say
   that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory
   of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,
   when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath
   heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the
   contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at
   the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it
   abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the
   said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.
   'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether
   we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,
   though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that
   such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the
   contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;
   and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has
   added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of
   a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,
   proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts
   an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes
   round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by
   itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

      _J. Blackburn,
      in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.
      (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194.
   English Law Repositories.

   "The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194
   (Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384
   (6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not
   written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The
   knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century
   is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time,
   however, the growth and development of these laws can be
   traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises,
   and law reports."

      _John F. Dillon,
      The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      pages 28-29._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199.
   Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.

   "A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the
   earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the
   royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next
   fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into
   great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five
   cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer
   that the writ, which had before been granted as a special
   favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f.
   49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by
   appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.'
   Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was
   doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the
   Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are
   collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102,
   127."

      _J. B. Ames,
      The Disseisin of Chattels
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208.
   Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.

   "From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a
   dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are
   combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the
   Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a
   document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and
   is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the
   jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned
   together, and all went out and conferred privately as if
   composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in
   open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in
   1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier
   cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been
   conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a
   combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who
   tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their
   more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from
   another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time
   the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated.
   Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In
   1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged
   differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a
   lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to
   the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the
   inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans
   lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in
   1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i.
   e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12
   Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process
   should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking
   of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this
   shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B.
   12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the
   assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will
   not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B.
   5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with
   the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke,
   afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if
   this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are
   joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in
   his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death,
   to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law
   during all his time. It may, however, well have been long
   obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the
   seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is
   vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably
   surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew,
   in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to
   the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon
   disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the
   right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of
   1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against
   all sorts of witnesses."

      _James B. Thayer,
      in Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 302-5,
      also in Sel. Cas. Ev.
      pages 771-773._

   "After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old
   strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still
   continued under the new system. As the history of the matter
   was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was
   extended to all sorts of writings."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 773._

{1961}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante).
   Courts following the King.

   "Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to
   the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings
   of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and
   besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every
   important town in England, which could be exercised only on
   the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to
   place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to
   hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of
   their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks,
   and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the
   phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the
   machinery of justice went with them."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 87._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Magna Charta.

   "With regard to the administration of justice, besides
   prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of
   Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer
   be harassed with following the King's person in all his
   progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues
   borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing
   assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing
   annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident
   to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the
   regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the
   King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or
   trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might
   otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and
   regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals
   of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet.
   … And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that
   it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual
   of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty
   and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the
   judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

      _Owen Flintoff,
      Laws of England,
      page 184._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216.
   Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.

   "The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did
   nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were
   not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of
   law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened
   churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to
   lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the
   rights of all classes of the people were defined and
   consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our
   constitutional history: National councils had met from the
   most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not
   being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non
   scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between
   common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace
   the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These
   changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the
   time being."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 115._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272.
   Henry de Bracton.

   "It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this
   turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and
   the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to
   the world the best treatise upon law of which England could
   boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in
   the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very
   gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with
   certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been
   noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone
   by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets;
   and some have doubted whether all these names are not
   imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar
   knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he
   was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of
   jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from
   his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those
   whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he
   rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed
   practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself
   in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for
   lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was
   unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures,
   which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton;
   but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord
   Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 139._

   For opposite view

      _See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217.
   Dower.

   "The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the
   provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of
   widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it
   still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow
   is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which
   her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any
   time during the marriage. At the present day there are means
   provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or
   defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,
   remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a
   short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It
   seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the
   contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not
   the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband
   on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the
   bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the
   family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the
   husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride
   herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases
   the husband or his father executed before marriage an
   instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and
   extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another
   and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower
   is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning
   following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might
   consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated
   by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore
   desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be
   specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of
   the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of
   betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was
   after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less
   would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes
   permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at
   the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third
   part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must
   have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.
{1962}
   A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad
   ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out
   of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled
   to a third part. In process of time however, this species of
   dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied
   to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains
   in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my
   worldly goods I thee endow.'"

      _Kenelm E. Digby,
      History of the Law of Real Property,
      pages 126-128 (4th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
   Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.

   "The writ had originally no connection whatever with the
   relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to
   the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the
   time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears
   that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to
   be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit
   each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford
   (1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs
   without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed
   that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular
   state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment,
   which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These
   writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to
   their number were made from time to time by direction of the
   King, of his Council or of Parliament."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 9._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.
   Sale of Judicial Offices.

   "The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing
   profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial
   Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox,
   chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found
   innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship,
   and accurate details of the amount of the consideration
   monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and
   justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The
   Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce,
   in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

      _J. Parke,
      History of English Chancery,
      page 23._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265.
   Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.

   "Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of
   Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to
   the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of
   Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of
   common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the
   Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were
   assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself,
   wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of
   King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram
   Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis
   Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and
   had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the
   Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in
   rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the
   Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of
   the law."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 139-140._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.
   Statute of Westminster the First;
   Improvement of the Law.

   "He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in
   May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,'
   deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament.
   From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the
   English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor
   merely caused a compilation to be made of existing
   laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply
   defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward
   deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the
   undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France,
   Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been
   personally useful in the consultations for the formation of
   the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been
   left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and
   the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord
   Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The
   statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. …
   It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of
   much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the
   peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county
   court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the
   elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when
   the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law,
   putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been
   lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence.
   It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and
   criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to
   render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As
   long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law
   rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year
   of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the
   seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in
   the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of
   Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the
   'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year
   of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the
   'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the
   establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle
   to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of
   Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of
   enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to
   the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought
   to be the object of every wise legislation."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 143-146._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278.
   Foundation of Costs at Common Law.

   "The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation
   of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that
   statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff
   recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the
   Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct
   authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under
   the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was
   to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of
   each case, in the disposition of costs."

      _Sydney Hastings,
      Treatise on Torts,
      page 379._

{1963}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Statute of Westminster II.;
   Writs in Consimili Casu.

   "The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case
   was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the
   Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or
   two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides
   further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in
   Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case
   falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the
   Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the
   Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be
   written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the
   next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law
   a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's
   Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.'
   … The words of the statute give no power to make a
   completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases
   similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within
   existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself
   are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in
   title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in
   title of a person who had been disseised of his common.
   Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its
   sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and
   they were, as English judges have always been, devoted
   adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking
   certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive
   variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our
   common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit,
   and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this
   way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the
   15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager
   rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the
   Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and
   developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of
   fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman
   Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      pages 10-11._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Writ of Elegit.

   The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute
   Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a
   debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance
   taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only
   have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits
   of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari
   facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which
   was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which
   prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of
   the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute
   therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is
   in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will
   sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the
   defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only
   appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the
   plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable
   appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt.
   If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half
   of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the
   judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other
   in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff;
   to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be
   levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till
   the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in
   tail."

      _Wm. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, chapter 27._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290.
   Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.

   "The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and
   permanently established the free right of alienation by the
   sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared,
   that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate
   feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor
   himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by
   rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was
   created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which
   granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of
   13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These
   provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of
   the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III.,
   taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants
   in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place;
   … and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the
   common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to
   freedom."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 67._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292.
   Fleta.

   "Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by
   one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to
   have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an
   abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which
   was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same
   character, except that it is written in the vernacular
   language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written
   in Latin."

      _Thomas J. Semmes,
      9 American Bar Association Report,
      page 193._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa).
   The King's Peace a Common Right.

   "By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much
   else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for
   larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an
   occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however,
   remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full
   benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as
   1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men
   in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the
   best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the
   old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who
   superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers
   and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by
   later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made
   it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the
   common law, the right of every lawful man."

      _F. Pollock,
      The King's Peace,
      (Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 1, page 49)._

A. D. 1307-1509.
   The Year Books.

   "The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year
   Books … , written in law French, and extend from the
   beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the
   reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. …
   The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions
   touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in
   real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 3, lecture 21._

{1964}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316.
   Election of Sheriffs abolished.

   "Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the
   inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th
   year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with
   few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon
   nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain
   ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff
   is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on
   the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

      _New American Cyclopædia,
      volume 14, page 585._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377.
   Jurors cease to be Witnesses.

   "The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal
   knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in
   dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.
   But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came
   into controversy, and in which persons had been named as
   witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed.
   … This seems to have paved the way for the important change
   whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave
   their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the
   trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere
   witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them
   and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means
   improbable that the latter were at first associated with them
   in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of
   a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a
   separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed
   in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year
   Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were
   joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is,
   notwithstanding, drawn between them."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 124 and 128._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362.
   Pleading in the English tongue.
   Enrollment in Latin.

   "The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that
   in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended,
   answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the
   lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be
   'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms
   and forms retained."

      _J. Parke,
      History of Chancery,
      page 43._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368.
   Jury System in Civil Trials.

   "As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the
   earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the
   hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order
   to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a
   writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other
   officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and
   lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein
   specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And
   this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready
   at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting.
   But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia
   Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which
   took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of
   one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be
   very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all
   parts of the country. And as justices were already in the
   habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding
   the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to
   substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in
   other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore
   passed, which enacted that these justices should try other
   issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where
   both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the
   court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the
   venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to
   bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named,
   he was now required to bring them there on a certain day,
   'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of
   assize came into his county, in which case the statute
   directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before
   the justices of assize."

      _W. Forsyth,
      History of Trial by Jury,
      pages 139-140._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382.
   Peaceable Entry.

   "This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5
   Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and
   not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps
   another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both
   a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an
   immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in
   statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of
   the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 179._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403.
   Venue to be laid in proper Counties.

   "The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having
   ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this,
   as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue,
   if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ:
   which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this
   power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not
   to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes
   remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a
   suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial
   cannot be had therein."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 294._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.
   Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law
   in Common-law Tribunals.

   "In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of
   Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward,
   supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the
   tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards,
   but more particularly from the time of John, had been
   accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the
   Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of
   Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even
   … with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the
   reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would
   never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and
   the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the
   common law tribunals."

      _G. Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 346._

{1965}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436.
   Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.

   "In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the
   Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in
   disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting
   the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this
   time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the
   common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and
   recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of
   subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to
   satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and
   expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good
   which is contained in the bill.'"

       _Lord Campbell,
       Lives of the Chancellors,
       volume I, page 272._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa).
   Evidence.
   Number of Witnesses.

   "It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of
   the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the
   jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain.
   Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury
   trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then
   but little considered and of small importance."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 1071._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Jury and its Development
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, page 360)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456.
   Demurrers to Evidence.

   "Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of
   allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting
   contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the
   demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were
   demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the
   jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form,
   to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second
   was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict
   for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a
   matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the
   evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not
   observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is
   interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of
   witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 162)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470.
   Evidence.
   Competency of Witnesses.

   "Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account
   (about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury,
   gives no information as to any ground for challenging them.
   But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain
   qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that
   'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as
   grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of
   non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or
   the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the
   justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either
   against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne
   una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in
   the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the
   outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of
   witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the
   excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences
   resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the
   present century, in England, nearly all objections to
   competency were abolished, or turned into matters of
   privilege."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      p. 1070._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473.
   Barring Entails.
   Taltarum's Case.

   "The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having
   of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed
   in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual
   entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the
   entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the
   Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the
   estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent
   being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the
   tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases,
   in spite of the will of the donor."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, pages 309-310._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505.
   Development of Actions of Assumpsit.

   "It is probable that the willingness of equity to give
   pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development
   of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised
   pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and
   thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J.,
   remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and
   sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to
   sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,'
   adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall
   have only damages by this [action on the case], but by
   subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate
   or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      Specific Performance of Contracts
      (The Green Bag,
      volume 1, page 26)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484.
   Statutes to be in English.

   "In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority
   'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are
   struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of
   Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty
   of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the
   laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the
   English tongue."

      _Charles Knight,
      History of England,
      volume 2, page 200._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa).
   Copyright.

   "From about the period of the introduction of printing into
   this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth
   century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion
   of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in
   their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a
   right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is
   no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the
   Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the
   Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in
   1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the
   spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic
   jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of
   books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.
   At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory
   protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The
   existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law
   were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common
   Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and
   more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,
   the first English Statute providing for the protection of
   Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the
   sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term
   of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the
   expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the
   forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of
   penalties in cases of piracy.
{1966}
   But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very
   much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the
   substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one
   hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the
   other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at
   the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already
   mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and
   the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But
   notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some
   time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and
   numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in
   books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute
   of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could
   only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.
   In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of
   Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's
   'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by
   the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly
   raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,
   and independent of that statute, remained in the author after
   publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of
   all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was
   founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away
   by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for
   a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this
   decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally
   celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the
   Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord
   Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who
   were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken
   away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of
   etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the
   Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in
   consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious
   oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the
   above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had
   taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence
   that in a published book there was no Copyright except that
   given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst
   those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of
   Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities
   obtained one protecting their literary property."

      _T. A. Romer,
      Copyright Law Reform
      (Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 12, page 231)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499.
   Action of Ejectment.

   "The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern
   action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form,
   is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas
   had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment
   could be brought in all three of the great common law courts.
   … The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged
   ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative
   practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione
   firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any
   other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently
   following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of
   equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief
   not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to
   recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly
   the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It
   cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In
   1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione
   firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in
   trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done.
   … But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the
   term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest
   reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred
   to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered
   during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole
   system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to
   land, and the recovery of real property."

      _Sedgwick and Wait,
      Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition),
      sections 12-25._

   "Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in
   England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36,
   which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower.
   It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it
   the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his
   own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant,
   since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to
   all persons except such as can show a better one."

      _Washburn,
      Real Property (5th edition),
      volume 1, page 465._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542.
   Consideration in Contracts.

   "To the present writer it seems impossible to refer
   consideration to a single source. At the present day it is
   doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration
   into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of
   the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not
   have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then
   two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a
   precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient,
   having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On
   the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity
   of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two
   species of consideration, so different in their nature, are,
   as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of
   detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit,
   whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be
   studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 1-2)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520.
   The Law of Parol Guaranty.

   "It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third
   person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price
   should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the
   promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol
   guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor
   were as much within the principle of the new action as those
   in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily
   recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the
   student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If
   he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the
   promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was
   promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly
   profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always
   been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at
   the promisor's request."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 14)._

{1967}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535.
   Statute of Uses.

   "Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the
   twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to
   protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the
   king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by
   feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by
   joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or,
   in other words, by providing that all the estate which would
   by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should
   instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'),
   to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and
   beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every
   case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues
   and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By
   converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did
   away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by
   will, which had been one of the most important results of the
   introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results
   aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of
   circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had
   arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with,
   coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of
   the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious
   result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly
   the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret
   conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a
   strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction
   between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was
   revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property
   and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing
   which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry
   VIII."

      _Kenelm E. Digby,
      History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition),
      pages 343-345._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542.
   Testamentary Power.

   "The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of
   slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English
   land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power
   over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 &
   34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a
   testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in
   this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of
   the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts'
   of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there
   were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate;
   and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one
   half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could
   only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the
   superior claims of the widow and children existed all over
   England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but …
   by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I.,
   followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have
   been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now
   extends to all his real and personal property."

      _Stuart C. Macaskie,
      The Law of Executors and Administrators,
      page 1._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.
   Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

   "The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few
   words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is
   commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is
   a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express
   promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The
   evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the
   sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke,
   who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me,
   and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action
   of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the
   promise.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 16)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557.
   Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.

   "Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich.
   Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically
   rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will
   not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second
   use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect
   of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable
   doctrine as to uses in lands."

      _A. H. Marsh,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      pages 122-123._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580.
   Equal Distribution of Property.

   "In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons
   dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was
   equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an
   act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a
   further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since
   adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited
   parents from disinheriting their children except for certain
   specified offences. Under this legal system, it became
   customary for parents to divide their property by will equally
   among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the
   property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England.
   The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the
   equal distribution of property, in case there was no
   will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the
   colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament
   injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United
   States."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 452._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589.
   Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.

   "The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in
   the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6
   Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and
   the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of
   43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and
   which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by
   its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in
   immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of
   insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages
   afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty
   cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and
   even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes,
   containing very little information or claim to authority."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 5, lecture 48._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592.
   A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.

   "In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice
   of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have
   occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At
   first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false
   notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.
   The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered
   particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.
{1968}
   The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,
   and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the
   century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when
   convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,
   the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute
   cannot be disputed."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1. page 366._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700.
   Evidence.
   "Best Evidence Rule."

   "This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the
   seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while
   rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers
   were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1)
   that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2)
   that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the
   beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system
   of evidence before juries. They were never literally
   enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a
   long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence
   and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field
   for the application of the general principle of the 'Best
   Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a
   definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading.
   This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in
   McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal
   rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the
   nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's
   treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and
   antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid.
   s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence'
   principle was the rule about proving the contents of a
   writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older
   than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may
   well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears
   to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine
   required the actual production of the instrument which was set
   up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with
   the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents
   of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence.
   And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from
   witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to
   speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the
   deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of
   exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 726._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600.
   Mortgagee's Right to Possession.

   "When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of
   mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was
   established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon
   condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested
   the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee,
   unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was
   entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors
   brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the
   Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed
   on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was
   not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is
   probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a
   provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should
   retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and
   fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the
   English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as
   matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was
   the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession
   upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about
   this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was
   the law."

      _H. W. Chaplin,
      The Story of Mortgage Law
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 12)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602.
   Malicious Prosecution.

   "The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented
   formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our
   own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the
   practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely,
   that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution
   is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is
   confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases
   are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to
   permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record,
   so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury
   in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted
   questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should
   be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J.,
   in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea,
   because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other
   justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay
   gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old
   rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the
   old reasons of policy."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 147)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 150._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603.
   Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.

   "The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other
   negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice
   Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex.,
   pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into
   use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the
   use of them spread to France, and eventually they were
   introduced into England. The first English reported case in
   which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3),
   decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems
   to have been confined to foreign bills between English and
   foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic
   bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons
   whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on
   the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of
   declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn
   'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

      _M. D. Chalmers,
      Bills of Exchange,
      page xliv., introduction._

      See, also,
      MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

{1969}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604.
   Death Inferred from Long Absence.

   "It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence;
   the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and
   putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a
   common-law rule, and one of general application in all
   questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded
   cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long
   before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had
   exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the
   situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had
   married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond
   the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been
   absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the
   one of them not knowing the other to be living within that
   time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the
   absent party were dead; it did not validate the second
   marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the
   statutory penalty."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 151)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609.
   First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.

   "There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue
   upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper
   was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity
   demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to
   receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the
   part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was
   in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover
   upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six
   Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 58)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623.
   Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit,
   established.

   "The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made
   when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before
   and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs
   could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment
   was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant;
   and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment,
   but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally
   decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded,
   of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be
   charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 6,
      citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa).
   Experiment in Legislation.
   Limitation in time.

   "The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation
   is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens;
   but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of
   Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of
   an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often
   with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working
   of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final
   legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of
   compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of
   such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old
   Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of
   Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and
   pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports
   of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more
   liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to
   the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to
   that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done
   in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued
   from time to time, and finally (the experiment having
   apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance
   is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice
   of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of
   the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on
   account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places.
   It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an
   end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern
   instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for
   eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of
   Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway
   Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually
   continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal
   Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new
   departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st
   December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop
   Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in
   1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place.
   —It is in this respect that the Experimental method of
   Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only
   locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of
   the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte
   Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the
   earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it
   was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards
   seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all
   dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at
   Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman
   emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual,
   afterwards became precedents of general law."

      _James William
      (Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9),
      4th ser., volume 14, page 306._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641.
   Public Registry.

   "When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty
   in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the
   Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland,
   brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth,
   coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the
   prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and
   leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the
   Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced
   it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union
   established substantially the same system."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 463._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa).
   Law regarded as a Luxury.

   "Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was
   perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its
   administration the system had been little changed since the
   days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses
   had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a
   mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for
   judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,
   thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their
   positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,
   the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for
   every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to
   the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were
   written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated
   could understand.
{1970}
   The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in
   perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which
   seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the
   merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would
   secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had
   become a luxury for the rich alone."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, pages 383-384._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.
   Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to
   Defendant by Mistake.

   "One who received money from another to be applied in a
   particular way was bound to give an account of his
   stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that
   effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason
   to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would
   find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who
   would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the
   money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously
   supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, …
   the intended application of the money being impossible, the
   plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also
   lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise
   implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with
   Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of
   Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to
   the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps,
   the first action of the kind."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 66)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670.
   Personal Knowledge of Jurors.

   "The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
   where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
   and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which
   appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
   day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
   summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in
   Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from
   the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law
   supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters
   in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on
   either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon
   a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but
   offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed
   to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made
   of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the
   meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight
   somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding
   evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge,
   they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to
   the evidence, if they so thought fit."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 134-136._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678.
   The Statute of Frauds.

   "During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in
   consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed.
   Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of
   verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of
   interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without
   writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made
   equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to
   the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried
   into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as
   the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of
   Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it
   must often have obviated the necessity for equitable
   interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been
   decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of
   contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the
   time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence
   of the parties to an action at law could not then be received,
   and the Defendant might have been charged upon the
   uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not
   allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years
   afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was
   introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable
   precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay
   down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing
   signed by him."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 170._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680.
   Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.

   "The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall
   be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his
   equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old
   statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or
   imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his
   council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of
   the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is
   enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained
   without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person
   be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of
   his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body
   before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall
   determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And
   by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act,
   the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out
   and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long
   detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law
   requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared
   by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be
   required."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries, I., 135._

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 4, lecture 24._

   For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679

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

A. D. 1683-1771.
   Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.

   "The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent
   birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal
   property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal,
   in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law
   of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. …
   The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate,
   in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received
   with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The
   distinction between a will of real and personal estate could
   not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he
   saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally
   and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in
   Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage
   and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 68._

{1971}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688.
   Dividing Line between Old and New Law.

   The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English
   reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed
   at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between
   the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked.
   The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures
   were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of
   modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt,
   and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and
   honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of
   the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of
   the common law."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 3, lecture 21._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.
   First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach
   of Promise to Account.

   "It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to
   account is created by law, yet the privity without which such
   an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the
   parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from
   which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next
   question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what
   is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the
   only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least
   specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages
   for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would
   lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the
   necessity of investigating all the items of the account for
   the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and
   that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an
   action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to
   account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will
   lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is
   entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as
   therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an
   action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages
   only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the
   most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered
   by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in
   which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as
   the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while
   the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from
   early times."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 250-251)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710.
   Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.

   "The most celebrated case which he decided in this department
   was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose,
   'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of
   goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his
   negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable
   clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the
   liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for
   different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of
   his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English
   lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He
   then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing
   the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in
   each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will
   give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows
   that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied
   promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no
   reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is
   liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William
   Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of
   Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this
   judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law
   of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to
   arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a
   scientific order.'"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chief Justices,
      volume 2, pages 113-114._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703.
   Implied Promises recognized.

   "The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was
   exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award.
   If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the
   money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the
   analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was
   for the performance of a collateral act, … there was,
   originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award,
   unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision
   of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in
   point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden,
   J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this
   contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must
   be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This
   doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, …
   said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men
   submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby
   promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing
   to refer is a promise in itself.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 62)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706.
   Dilatory Pleas.

   "Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in
   abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory
   pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only
   for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory
   plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth
   thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce
   them to believe it true."

       _W. Blackstone,
       Commentaries,
       book 3, page 302._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710.
   Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.

   "The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of
   the law of artificial persons relates to those which are
   formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment
   of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks
   the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its
   partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,
   and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract
   made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law
   of England, only in an action in which the whole list of
   partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to
   remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were
   formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital
   invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the
   shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.
   This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,
   nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from
   liability for debts in excess of their, past or present,
   shares in the concern.
{1972}
   In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of
   the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to
   discourage the formation of such associations; and the
   formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were
   incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,
   prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An
   incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary
   principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a
   definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the
   company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,
   divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,
   though they participate in the profits of the concern, in
   proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no
   personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial
   person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of
   law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the
   sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or
   'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or
   'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a
   corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an
   unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling
   a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some
   of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of
   others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven
   partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number
   exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become
   incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with
   either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at
   the time of incorporation."

      _Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 298._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711.
   Voluntary Restraint of Trade.

   "The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in
   the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still
   the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint
   of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law
   was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker),
   distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of
   trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason
   why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from
   the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the
   encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest
   industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the
   subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta,
   which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says:
   Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel
   libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these
   words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

      _Frederick N. Judson,
      14 American Bar Association Report,
      page 236._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
   Special Juries.

   "The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so
   late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems
   to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450
   (29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute
   of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known,
   and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster
   shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or
   defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the
   proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in
   such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck
   in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said
   courts.'"

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      pages 143-144._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.
   Written Pleadings to be in English.

   "There was one great improvement in law proceedings which,
   while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last
   accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings,
   both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to
   be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would
   have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it
   was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property,
   and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in
   the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so
   corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had
   prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the
   public was now attracted to it by a petition from the
   magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York,
   representing the evils of the old law language being retained
   in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the
   substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the
   Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of
   Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the
   Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord
   Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. …
   Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed,
   and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should
   have been so long deferred."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 4, page 504._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744.
   Oath according to one's Religion.

   "Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not
   Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn
   according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the
   evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of
   justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the
   Evangelists. This subject first came before him in
   Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account
   against the representatives of an East India Governor, the
   plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel,
   a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he
   could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that
   the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should
   be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to
   administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his
   conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in
   the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar
   commission to examine witnesses having issued, the
   Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses
   examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the
   Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the
   Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are
   administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.'
   Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be
   read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the
   question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the
   three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long,
   learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with
   pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions
   were admissible."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 5, pages 69-70._

{1973}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.
   Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first
   reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained
   against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

   "Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in
   competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for
   custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might
   'turn an action against a common carrier into a special
   assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.'
   Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first
   reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 63)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800.
   Demurrer to Evidence.

   "Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were
   rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of
   Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case,
   that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come
   up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party
   demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he
   admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the
   case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not
   always followed in this country, but the fact that it was
   really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 147)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 149._


COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788.
   Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.

   "In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest
   manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her
   jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in
   the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily
   arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting
   the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine
   insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory
   notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. …
   Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came
   into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by
   private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an
   action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a
   court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who
   determined it according to their own notions of what was fair,
   and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be
   referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. …
   When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of
   King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his
   labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them
   by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important
   case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the
   indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years
   the commercial law of this country has taken a very different
   turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was
   proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general
   principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put
   together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law,
   all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they
   were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general
   principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has
   been to find some certain general principle, which shall be
   known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case
   then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the
   future. Most of us have heard these principles stated,
   reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost
   in admiration at the strength and stretch of the
   understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under
   a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which
   has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to
   be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' …
   With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord
   Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us
   to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their
   orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the
   second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate
   indorser without having previously demanded payment from the
   drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2
   Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the
   same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that
   in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege
   and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had
   likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange
   is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a
   refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr.,
   2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the
   dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as
   matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of
   fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each
   particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It
   seems strange to us how the world could go on when such
   questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is
   another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people.
   … I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the
   hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the
   rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided
   upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being
   wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and
   delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord
   Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in
   proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord
   Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics,
   … availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on
   the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The
   question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller
   of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they
   shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a
   'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus
   expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The
   basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more
   especially in these transactions, where the public are brought
   together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale
   will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never
   be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a
   person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the
   argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates
   his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he
   bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take
   the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to
   him.'"

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chief Justices,
      volume 2, pages 308-314._

{1974}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
   Judicial Independence.

   "A glance into the pages of the _Judges of England, by
   Foss,_ will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts
   exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose
   decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the
   Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed
   to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously
   defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of
   Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law,
   and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal
   assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of
   the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the
   Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out
   of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement
   secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except
   in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the
   address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of
   the measure is seen by the promise under which that
   arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William
   III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively,
   in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It
   was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of
   the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

      _J. G. S. MacNeill,
      Law Magazine and Review, 4th series,
      volume 16 (1890-91), page 202._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.
   Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

   "The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and
   liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord
   Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he
   held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of
   the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value
   without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later
   affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of
   the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it
   all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this
   principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in
   which it was held that if the holder for value took it under
   circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a
   prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case
   annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was
   sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine
   of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and
   settled law of England and this country."

      _Wm. A. McClean,
      Negotiable Paper
      (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.
   Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before
   the Declaration of Independence.

   "Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the
   first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia
   Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It
   was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but
   not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation
   whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The
   next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,'
   chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having
   been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The
   Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of
   Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company'
   (Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron
   Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock
   business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After
   that time the number rapidly increased, especially in
   Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were
   created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half
   of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining
   States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no
   great variety in the purposes for which these early companies
   were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads,
   toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing
   were the enterprises which they carried on."

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pp. 165-166)._

A. D. 1776.
   Ultimate property in land.

   "When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became
   separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican
   government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the
   ownership of all lands within the State which had not already
   been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source
   of all private titles."

      _Judge Comstock,
      People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church,
      22 N. Y., 44-46._

   "It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with
   the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part
   of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the
   State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of
   England were brought by the colonists with them as suited
   their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such
   general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until
   altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The
   principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this
   country are held subject to modification and change, according
   to the circumstances and condition of the people and
   government here. … By the English common law, the King was
   the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land
   within his dominion, and it was considered to be held
   mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the
   United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the
   English Crown in this country passed to the People of the
   different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change
   of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance
   formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great
   Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments
   of the States."

      _James Gerard,
      Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition),
      pages 26 and 5._

   "Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any
   possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute
   ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested
   somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might
   result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public
   law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be
   regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the
   State where the land lies. This corporate power has been
   naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because
   it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations
   of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is
   represented by an individual, as in England, there the
   absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is
   vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,
   succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for
   the nation.
{1975}
   In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in
   regard to real property, is represented by the State in its
   corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested
   in the State."

      _Anson Bingham,
      Law of Real Property,
      page 3._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778.
   First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.

   "A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of
   course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as
   a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18],
   decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an
   action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 8)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783.
   Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.

   "The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called
   'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent
   work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians,
   the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used
   various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and
   handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to
   be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however,
   during the last seventy or eighty years that the present
   system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord
   Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the
   Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the
   foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed,
   and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was
   enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From
   that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of
   cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be
   considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the
   Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of
   trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a
   trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the
   Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The
   underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of
   preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by
   fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in
   other words, the application of the broad principles of
   equity."

      _Grafton D. Cushing,
      Cases Analogous to Trade-marks
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 321)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790.
   Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person
   under a Bill of Lading.

   "Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in
   the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court
   of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of
   King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to
   commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to
   stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has
   become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a
   third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading,
   for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From
   a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has
   ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor
   to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have
   here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will
   not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of
   this country on a point of very great importance, as it
   regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For
   these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench
   ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in
   the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right
   of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller,
   has ever since been established."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 6, pages 138-139._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792.
   Best-Evidence rule.

   "In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough
   said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the
   general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the
   case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was
   becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and
   over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had
   said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III.
   368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general
   rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this,
   that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of
   shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not
   possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be
   allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence
   existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a
   presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at
   present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned
   Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the
   difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is
   more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than
   this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is
   very limited in its extent and application. It signifies
   nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot
   possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be
   admitted.'"

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 732._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794.
   First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.

   "In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of
   the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking
   to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court,
   went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon
   yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well
   as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that
   the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not
   indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those
   manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good
   sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of
   their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a
   strict application of rules."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Law and Fact in Jury Trials
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 4, page 171)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Thayer,
      Select Cases on Evidence,
      page 153._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843.
   Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to
   claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

   "It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the
   jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge
   on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A
   distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime.
   This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched
   debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set
   free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were
   further extended, when debtors were not only released from
   confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on
   giving up all their goods."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition)
      volume 2, page 271._

      See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.

{1976}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819.
   The Dartmouth College Case.

   "The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved
   chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation
   of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the
   rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which
   declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or
   law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch
   of this clause had always been understood to relate to
   criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting
   civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v.
   Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
   respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
   contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding
   this case, had assumed that the college was a public
   corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment;
   which was, that between the State and its public corporations
   there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter,
   or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this
   fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a
   private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the
   right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between
   the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the
   charity, and take the incorporation for its better management,
   he could bring the legislative interference within the
   prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important
   positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the
   founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be
   visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers
   to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not
   a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the
   administration of which the trustees had a property, which the
   law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is
   a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and
   those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the
   legislation which took away from the trustees the right to
   exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and
   government, and transferred them to another set of trustees,
   impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the
   conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a
   decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was
   made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which
   Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the
   principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a
   charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it
   under the protection of the Constitution of the United States,
   takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having
   produced its judicial establishment."

      _G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823.
   Indian Right of Occupancy.

   "The first case of importance that came before the court of
   last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with
   their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh,
   8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered
   the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to
   the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was
   made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants;
   that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a
   title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of
   occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the
   lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of
   occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It
   has never been doubted that either the United States or the
   several States had a clear title to all the lands within the
   boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between
   England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right
   of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that
   right was vested in that government which might
   constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then,
   have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by
   which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They
   hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was
   acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that
   discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian
   title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and
   gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the
   circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The
   power now possessed by the government of the United States to
   grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or
   its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has
   never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised
   uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The
   existence of this power must negative the existence of any
   right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute
   title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different
   persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an
   exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others
   not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the
   absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right
   of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to
   extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute
   and complete title in the Indians.'"

      _William B. Hornblower,
      14 American Bar Association Report 264-265._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826
   Jurors from the Body of the County.

   "In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the
   reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the
   requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from
   near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in
   all its essential functions similar to what now exists. …
   The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood
   where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;
   and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which
   appears in all indictments and declarations at the present
   day. It points out the place from which the jury must be
   summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need
   only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      chapter 7, section 3._

{1977}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828.
   Lord Tenterden's Act.

   "Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon
   the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement
   or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence
   of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such
   Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in
   some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

      _Statutes at Large,
      volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833.
   Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.

   "This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as
   were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of
   'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which
   consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the
   claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into
   court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his
   denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general
   institution, which we find established not only among the
   Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations
   that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist
   among us even till the last reign, when it was at length
   abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager
   of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great
   disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost
   entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action
   of trover and conversion."

      _Stephens,
      Commentaries,
      volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834.
   Real Actions abolished.

   "The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so
   far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land)
   were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute
   abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few
   exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for
   the first time, limited directly the period within which an
   ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of
   'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an
   owner to the possession of land of which another person has
   the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested
   or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to
   maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that
   whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it
   provided that whenever the statute began to run against the
   one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and
   that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both
   rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute
   should begin to run against each right the moment that the
   right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual
   possession and the right of possession became separated. The
   statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment
   (notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem
   (the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that
   it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i.
   e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual
   possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 144-145._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836.
   Exemption Laws.

   "Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws
   exempting from execution necessary household goods and
   personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the
   tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the
   beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr.
   Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the
   policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas
   passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift
   of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont
   followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but
   eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under
   various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and
   protection of the family is now exempt from execution or
   judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife
   shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly
   subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 360._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837.
   Employer's liability.

   "No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a
   century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of
   to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without
   fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the
   negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general
   employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of
   'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old
   one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the
   celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it
   is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically
   than any other reported case. … The American law, though in
   harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its
   own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1
   Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable
   to one servant injured through the negligence of another
   servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few
   years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by
   neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the
   American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent
   of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by
   those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang
   from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v.
   Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v.
   Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which,
   following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the
   United States. It has been followed in nearly every
   jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

      _Marland C. Hobbs,
      Statutory Changes in Employers Liability
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 212-213)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.
   Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's
   Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

   "The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent
   period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest
   claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,
   before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were
   wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility
   and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly
   and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed
   payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was
   liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and
   fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the
   debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The
   wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months
   before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was
   discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his
   discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a
   poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by
   imprisonment.
{1978}
   No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.
   … The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was
   frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at
   length accomplished. Provision was made for securing
   absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a
   debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of
   oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was
   denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed
   to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities
   were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by
   the establishment of county courts."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 267-268._

      See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848.
   Emancipation of Women.

   "According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel,
   all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat
   her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not
   guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no
   redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in
   1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848,
   which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so
   generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes
   of business, ownership of property, and claim to her
   individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as
   independent as a man."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 71._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.
   One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for
   Value.

   "Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral
   security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing
   indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who
   takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a
   holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends
   the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders
   something of value, gives some new consideration; while still
   others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a
   holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the
   note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does
   not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is
   known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court
   of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There,
   however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It
   was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had
   decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value,
   and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made
   in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court,
   through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone
   dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the
   doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such
   questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where
   the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for
   value."

      _Henry C. Tompkins,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      page 255._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845.
   Interest of Disseisee transferable.

   "It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the
   disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have
   been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the
   same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But
   in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky,
   Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and
   Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is
   still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain
   an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

      _J. B. Ames,
      The Disseisin of Chattels
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 25)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846.
   Ultra vires.

   "When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary
   powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it
   soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called
   into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as
   nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless
   expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must
   be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for
   which they had been incorporated. The question was first
   raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway
   company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in
   deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the
   following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most
   extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this
   country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law
   have yet been able to understand all the different lights in
   which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To
   look upon a railway company in the light of a common
   partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than
   common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake
   the functions which they perform and the powers which they
   exercise of interference not only with the public but with the
   private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am
   clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act
   of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further
   than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and
   properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and
   works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman
   v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though
   it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law.
   In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which
   the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was
   paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form
   yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all
   who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you
   have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will
   trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see
   that you have the power of carrying on business in such a
   manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which
   you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will
   know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote
   their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v.
   Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a
   corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third
   persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first
   in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch.
   84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all
   the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly,
   applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a
   corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation
   will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

      _Thomas Erskine Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.
      (Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law
      Review, May-June, 1894)._

{1979}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.
   The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

   "The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the
   extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other
   communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted
   substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The
   first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into
   effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in
   1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in
   1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in
   Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in
   Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho
   in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska
   in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North
   Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory
   in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in
   Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and
   Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has
   been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular
   Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore,
   between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though
   not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California
   in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil
   Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in
   1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864;
   in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory
   in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in
   1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in
   1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal
   Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted
   in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code,
   not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the
   Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California
   in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive
   laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but
   not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it
   will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the
   world to an extent and degree unknown since the
   Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

      _The Albany Law Journal,
      volume 39, page 261._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
   Simplification of Procedure.

   "In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has
   been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the
   virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America
   took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a
   Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other
   states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been
   taken up by England."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 70._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.
   Reform in the Law of Evidence.

   "The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by
   the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and
   sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person
   shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding
   at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event
   of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his
   conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be
   shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

      _(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849,
      page 86, section 141.
      In the margin of the page the time of the
      passage of the law is given as 1848.)_

   This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the
   Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the
   Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's
   family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at
   New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact,
   claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in
   this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken
   in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England,
   although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary
   enactments of the like kind in that country."

      _John F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 374, notes._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851.
   Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.

   "In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is
   the most important of all his censorial writings on English
   Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness
   of many of the established technical rules of evidence. …
   Among the rules combatted were those relating to the
   competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on
   various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He
   insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of
   justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be
   swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that
   parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. …
   But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the
   seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not
   all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the
   sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer.
   Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still
   held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in
   actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in
   1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil
   actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to
   testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the
   profession when I say changes more beneficial in the
   administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law,
   and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back
   upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place
   therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until
   within the last fifty years."

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      pages 339-341._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854.
   Reform in Procedure.

   "A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law
   Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their
   labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the
   actual merits of every case should be brought before the
   judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions
   arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to
   secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for
   finally determining every action brought within them, which
   the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the
   aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts
   to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to
   order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of
   goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions,
   and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to
   common law actions."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 288._

{1980}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854.
   "Another mode" (besides common law lien).

   "Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not
   merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also
   remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers
   and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by
   the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision,
   or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as
   'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first
   heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a
   landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well
   known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and
   which in England takes the form of a right of Distress.
   Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils,
   minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors,
   curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the
   praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of
   his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if
   they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon
   extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over
   property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for
   a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of
   the parties, without any transfer of possession, which
   although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly
   established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable
   property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of
   hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the
   fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only
   in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the
   maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code,
   following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that
   'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the
   'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of
   hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but
   is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and
   regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the
   mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at
   which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104].
   So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made
   security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its
   voyage."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      p. 203._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.
   Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

   "For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the
   titles and transfer of land has received great attention in
   England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to
   consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in
   1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles
   of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It
   recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This
   report, and the report of the special commission of the House
   of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the
   subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the
   more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of
   1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord
   Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for
   guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the
   Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which
   established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord
   Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

      _Dwight H. Olmstead,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      page 267._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855.
   Suits against a State or Nation.

   "In England the old common law methods of getting redress from
   the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le
   droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer,
   and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the
   Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23
   & 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in
   anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of
   the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been
   a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it
   shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home
   Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall
   think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an
   answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the
   Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as
   practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also
   provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown,
   subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in
   proceedings between subject and subject."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 337._

   The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For
   State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436
   and authorities there referred to.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.
   The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

   "The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a
   marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court
   of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is
   indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has
   never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before
   the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts
   would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the
   marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the
   Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the
   marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw.
   & Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts
   have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country
   between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences
   were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the
   fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v.
   Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr.
   52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not
   appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of
   domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed
   by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to
   have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237,
   and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and
   McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have
   been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould.
   But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P.
   D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory
   had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did
   not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord
   Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord
   Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and
   was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England,
   and we submit this is correct."

      _E. H. Monnier,
      Law Magazine & Review,
      12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82._

{1981}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873.
   The Judicature Acts.

   "The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the
   auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the
   consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one
   Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High
   Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it
   was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every
   division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief
   being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would
   have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no
   proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction
   analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any
   branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of
   course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the
   entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the
   25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where
   differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in
   favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted
   generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity
   should prevail."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History of Equity,
      page 293._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882.
   Experiments in Codification in England.

   "The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code
   or codifying enactment which has found its way into the
   English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the
   authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the
   whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch
   of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its
   language is the language of the legislature, and therefore
   authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely
   express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the
   law on any given subject. In other words the words
   propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a
   digest may or may not be law."

      _M. D. Chalmers,
      An Experiment in Codification
      (Law Quarterly Review,
      volume 2, page 125)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1889.
   Passage of Block-Indexing Act.

   "The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is
   confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred
   in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which
   culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the
   city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made
   by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the
   city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and
   report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of
   transferring title to land in the city and State. The
   committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records
   in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of
   the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those
   offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State
   commission, which should consider and report a mode of
   transferring land free from the difficulties of the present
   system. The report was adopted by the association, and during
   the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of
   Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the
   city."

      _D. H. Olmstead,
      13 American Bar Association Report,
      pages 269-270._

   ----------COMMON LAW: End----------

   ----------CRIMINAL LAW: Start----------

Criminal Law.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1272.
   The Ordinary Criminal Courts.

   "In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as
   follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was
   the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general
   supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court.
   The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things,
   but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of
   his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in
   stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the
   jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court.
   In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the
   Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of
   Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the
   common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so
   far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the
   greater part of its importance. These changes took place by
   degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and
   were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of
   Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and
   they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for
   the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter
   Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate
   existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when
   it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige
   of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."

      _Sir James F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law,
      volume 1, pages 75-76._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166.
   Disappearance of Compurgation in Criminal Cases.

   "In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is
   thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been
   called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon,
   in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical
   courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of
   compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases
   as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in
   Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with
   thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the
   new procedure."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166-1215.
   Jury in Criminal Cases.

   "It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the
   Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to
   criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The
   Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an
   accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done
   away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial
   for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding
   ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to
   have forbidden that mode of trial."

      _Jas. B. Thayer,
      The Jury and its Development
      (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265)._

{1982}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1176 (circa).
   "Eyres," and Criminal Jurisdiction.

   "It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits
   instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres',
   by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal
   justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one
   part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the
   general administration of the country, which was put to a
   considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices
   in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines,
   amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great
   importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of
   all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown
   which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was
   naturally associated with their duties as administrators of
   the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not
   only because it protected the life and property of his
   subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 102._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1198-1199.
   Trial by Ordeal.

   "The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our
   printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of
   death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are
   adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within
   twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in
   England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event
   which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize
   of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176),
   providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the
   larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The
   old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such
   cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore,
   that such quick operation should have been allowed in England
   to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran
   Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within
   about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by
   the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing
   with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial,
   'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et
   aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed
   records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      The Older Modes of Trial
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 64-65)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Two Juries in Criminal Cases.

   "The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly
   bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known
   fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of
   Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the
   decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the
   ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited
   system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."

      _J. B. Thayer,
      Presumptions and the Law of Evidence
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 3, page 159, note)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.
   Had Coroners Common Law Power as to Fires?

   "Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of
   holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more
   important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from
   continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This
   he did, and continues to do to the present day, without
   challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it
   denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters,
   such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The
   difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or
   was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no
   evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary,
   we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have
   before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that
   power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious
   crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna
   Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making
   a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."

      _Sherston Baker,
      Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),
      4th ser., volume 12, page 268._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1272-1875.
   King's Bench.
   The Supreme Criminal Court.

   "From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of
   King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of
   the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution
   of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during
   the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 94._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1276.
   Coroner's Jury.

   "The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary
   inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is
   the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr.
   Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority
   of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He
   gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in
   his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de
   Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost
   a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's
   duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the
   law on the subject."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 217._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Forsyth,
      Trial by Jury,
      page 187._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Courts of Oyer and Terminer.

   "The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted
   is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken
   in connection with some subsequent authorities throws
   considerable light on their nature. They were either general
   or special. General when they were issued to commissioners
   whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a
   criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the
   commission was confined to particular cases. Such special
   commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of
   particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol
   delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission
   of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et
   terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam
   nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus
   hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was
   that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon
   indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol
   delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they
   were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could
   not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he
   would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before
   justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and
   tried."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 106._

{1983}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1305.
   Challenging Jury for Cause.

   "The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e.
   without showing cause, any number of jurors less than
   thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired
   this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton
   mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that
   the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge
   peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure
   impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation
   between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to
   be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I,
   st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth,
   notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king
   that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not
   indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain
   untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will
   challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the
   challenge a cause certain.'"

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, pages 301-302._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1344.
   Justices of the Peace.

   "In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two
   or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be
   assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to
   hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the
   peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment
   reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators
   of the Peace obtained judicial power."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      History of the Criminal Law of England,
      volume 1, page 113._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1506.
   Insanity as a Defence.

   The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an
   insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.

      _American Law Review,
      volume 15, page 717._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1547.
   Two Lawful Witnesses required to Convict.

   "In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by
   statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8
   Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict
   a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence
   confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is
   declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same
   overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other
   to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not
   of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be
   admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the
   indictment."

      _Sir J. F. Stephen,
      Commentaries,
      volume 4, page 425 (8th edition)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1592.
   Criminal Trials under Elizabeth.

   "In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has
   ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was
   ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a
   magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or
   privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of
   the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture,
   for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the
   throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a
   counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor
   were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but
   written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of
   the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions
   of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its
   side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure
   of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by
   the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a
   verdict of acquittal."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 367._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1600 (circa).
   Capital Punishment.

   "Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his _History of Criminal
   Law_, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century
   there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1,
   468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time
   was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be
   quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of
   writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of
   their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were
   a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic
   multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth,
   … the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and
   quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial
   until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried
   helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief
   Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead
   not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered,
   which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut
   down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and
   then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces,
   which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the
   offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation
   of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most
   important place, as the chief object of interest. In the
   process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that
   due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's
   case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of
   a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As
   they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the
   voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man
   is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in
   the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged
   by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that
   the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to
   protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the
   public had gathered to enjoy."

      _Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1641-1662.
   No Man shall be compelled to Criminate himself.

   "What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these
   things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,
   but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object
   of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its
   existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court
   of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on
   the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).
   3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and
   limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of
   function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier
   than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But
   nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …
{1984}
   The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided
   that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical
   matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever
   any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or
   accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall
   be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably
   applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.
   II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one
   shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually
   called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may
   be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …
   The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but
   otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do
   the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.
   Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to
   the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and
   the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in
   common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or
   rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in
   part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has
   taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious
   investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or
   inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;
   and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually
   broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'
   were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own
   accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.
   … Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the
   canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons
   for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They
   professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not
   to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where
   the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not
   those which men generally regard as offences against social
   order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and
   limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and
   penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the
   civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the
   seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice
   of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There
   had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the
   same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the
   momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts
   after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over
   and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."

      _John H. Wigmore,
      Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 71-88)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820.
   187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.

   "From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period
   of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to
   the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to
   discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In
   the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating
   capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no
   less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses
   all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in
   character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating
   penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be
   increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until
   murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than
   picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or
   pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as
   they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish
   moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration
   of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them.
   Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty
   of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime,
   than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 553-554._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1695.
   Counsel allowed to Persons indicted for High Treason.

   "Holland, following the early example of Spain, always
   permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was
   too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public
   charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this
   right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of
   law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In
   1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high
   treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether
   a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley,
   afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the
   'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the
   House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon
   to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I,
   sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending,
   in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so
   confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I
   propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who,
   without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his
   honor, and for his posterity?'"

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, page 446._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1708.
   Torture.

   The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power
   of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary,
   Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was
   sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself
   conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in
   Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden
   in 1831.

      _Austin Abbott,
      Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,
      (The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.
   Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.

   The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for
   shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in
   which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of
   responsibility.

      _American Law Review,
      volume 15, pages 720-722._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1770.
   Criminal Law of Libel.

   "In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the
   King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the
   2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted
   libels from the general principles of the Criminal
   Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for
   the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither
   privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;
   secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge
   of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first
   rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of
   Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The
   second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32
   Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of
   England. …
{1985}
   A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by
   the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the
   forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the
   confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result
   of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a
   fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.
   Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the
   Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by
   merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in
   1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject
   of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was
   published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and
   sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on
   a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the
   Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was
   then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was
   adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George
   III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it
   had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created
   one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge
   is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the
   jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of
   the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the
   question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in
   which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to
   find the fact of the publication and the truth of the
   innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent
   was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which
   the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that
   this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.
   and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been
   developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.
   Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at
   present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James
   Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to
   defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the
   subject of a great number of highly important judicial
   decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to
   give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,
   honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public
   men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the
   proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History
   of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution
   of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in
   1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests
   between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the
   Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to
   public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,
   like the Censorship, have lapsed."

      _J. W. Ross Brown,
      Law Magazine & Review,
      4th ser., volume 17, page 197._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1791.
   Criminals allowed Counsel.

   "When the American States adopted their first constitutions,
   five of them contained a provision that every person accused
   of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same
   right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first
   amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This
   would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it
   was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later,
   and then only after a bitter struggle."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 1, page 70_.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1818.
   Last Trial by Battle.

   "The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of
   Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had
   been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the
   Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's
   bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient
   procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings,
   and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as
   the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a
   plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned
   on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo.
   III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were
   finally abolished."

      _Hannis Taylor,
      Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,
      part 1, page 311._

      See, also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D: 1819.
   Severity of the former Criminal Law of England.

   "Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a
   committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law,
   stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on
   the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the
   reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real
   severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of
   infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to
   convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor
   degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of
   transportation to the American and afterwards to the
   Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that,
   'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no
   doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in
   criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and
   destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"

      _J. F. Dillon,
      Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,
      page 366._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1825.
   "Ticket-of-leave" system established.

   "The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the
   English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the
   authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the
   first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are
   aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when
   transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17
   Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3,
   and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or
   ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those
   acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct
   during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and
   1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present
   efficacy."

      _Report of Committee on Judicial Administration,
      and Remedial Procedure
      (9 American Bar Association Report, 317)._

{1986}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1832-1860.
   Revision of Criminal Code in England.

   "With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal
   legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with
   philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many
   generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint,
   secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences
   connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted
   forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which
   the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like
   remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In
   1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the
   entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other
   remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord
   John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell
   short of public opinion, which found expression in an
   amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death
   to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by
   a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been
   accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the
   exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the
   last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this
   reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from
   1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for
   crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."

      _T. E. May,
      Constitutional History of England
      (Widdleton's edition),
      volume 2, pages 557-558._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1843.
   Lord Campbell's Libel Act, and Publisher's Liability.

   "In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769,
   appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory
   and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author
   was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the
   printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were
   brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling
   the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His
   connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he
   escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however,
   were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the
   general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a
   publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his
   servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to
   the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence
   was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges
   afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the
   publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of
   his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed
   until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel
   Act."

       _T. E. May,
       Constitutional History of England
       (Widdleton's edition),
       volume 2, pages 113-114._

   "And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any
   indictment or information for the publication of a libel,
   under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given
   which shall establish a presumptive case of publication
   against the defendant by the act of any other person by his
   authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove
   that such publication was made without his authority, consent,
   or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from
   want of due care or caution on his part."

      _Statute 6 & 7 Vic., c. 96, s. 7._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1848.
   The English Court of Criminal Appeal.

   "England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal,
   although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of
   legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one.
   Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous
   or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the
   'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all
   manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are
   deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle
   the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a
   court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an
   appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects
   charged with the commission of criminal offences are in
   general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury,
   guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule,
   however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place,
   any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a
   pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal
   prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice
   of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the
   second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding
   its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal,
   is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor,
   in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established
   by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."

      _The English Court of Criminal Appeal
      (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 345)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.
   Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.

   "About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco,
   refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The
   Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal
   cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining
   witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.)
   says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as
   witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict
   between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that
   the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French
   Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."

      _Theodore D. Woolsey,
      Introduction to the Study of International Law
      [6th edition],
      page 157, note._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1877.
   "Indeterminate Sentences."

   "This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has
   been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The
   Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted
   in New York, April 12, 1877."

      _Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and
      Remedial Procedure
      (9 American Bar Association Report, page 313)._

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1893.
   Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

   "The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v.
   Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high
   seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable
   as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open
   waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have
   changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force
   upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore
   in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in
   our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the
   Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and
   with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial
   power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good
   government."

      _University Law Review,
      volume 1, page 2._

   ----------CRIMINAL LAW: End----------

   ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: Start--------

{1987}

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.
   No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

   "In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of
   distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a
   temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained
   and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the
   rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the
   diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of
   the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had
   there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as
   civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion
   in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 61._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.
   Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.

   "William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the
   monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign
   clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy,
   and planted in the best preferments of the English church),
   was at length prevailed upon to … separate the
   ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by
   principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy,
   in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding
   with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain.
   But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the
   consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon
   overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court
   fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence,
   in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited
   any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts,
   and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only,
   whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, pages 62-63._

   "The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the
   separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular
   business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all
   other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show
   the influence of the ideas which under the genius of
   Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental
   churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no
   longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but
   to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not
   by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come
   before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may
   be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the
   punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere
   in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very
   naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, section 101._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1100.
   Reunion of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

   "King Henry the First, at his accession, among other
   restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived
   this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. …
   This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and,
   therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they
   ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of
   temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected
   union."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries, book 3, page 63._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.
   Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

   "And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper
   Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find
   one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that
   ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be
   subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about
   that time that the contest and emulation began between the
   laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts
   adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter
   as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between
   them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which
   probably would else have been effected at the general
   reformation of the church."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 64._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.
   Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.

   "To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the
   punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the
   case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though
   not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church.
   The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to
   the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were
   confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne
   poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se
   prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal
   punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the
   confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's
   Court."

      _Melville M. Bigelow,
      History of Procedure,
      page 51._

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.
   Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary
   Causes.

   "Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of
   marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of
   mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of
   spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early
   converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the
   church of course took it under her protection,' upon the
   division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder,
   that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy
   to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in
   causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from
   the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the
   clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for
   the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of
   testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island;
   for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters
   testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil
   magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy
   in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by
   the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as
   it should seem by some public act of the great council, is
   freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the
   fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to
   the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super
   consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo
   concesso.'"

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, pages 91-95._

{1988}

   Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the
   ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21
   and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the
   court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was
   transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.

   ----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: End--------

   ----------EQUITY: Start--------

Equity.

EQUITY: A. D. 449-1066.
   Early Masters in Chancery.

   "As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct
   traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred
   orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the
   chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the
   service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of
   justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the
   Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had
   great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 53._

EQUITY: A. D. 596.
   Chancellor, Keeper of the Great Seal.

   "From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by
   the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his
   person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel,
   and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most
   learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in
   accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court,
   soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his
   confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation
   between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little
   regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of
   superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great
   seal."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 27._

EQUITY: A. D. 1066.
   Master of the Rolls.

   "The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of
   the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this
   time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an
   independent officer."

      _Geo. Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 100._

EQUITY: A. D. 1066-1154.
   Chancellor as Secretary of State.

   Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary
   of state. His functions were political rather than judicial.
   He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal
   accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice.
   He was also the keeper of the seal.

      _Montague's Elements of Constitutional History of England,
      page 27._

      See, also, CHANCELLOR.

A. D. 1067.
   First Lord Chancellor.

   "The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title
   of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in
   1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period
   ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or
   archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached
   to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of
   England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after
   her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until
   the reign of Edward III."

      _L. J. Bigelow,
      Bench and Bar,
      page 23._

EQUITY: A. D. 1169.
   Uses and Trusts.

   "According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter
   vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious
   one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with
   an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed
   to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to
   the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his
   land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the
   clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus
   expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to
   by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other
   purposes, having been found more malleable than what was
   called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered
   indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that,
   after several other statutes had been passed with a view of
   curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted
   that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate
   should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The
   statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to
   trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the
   trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where
   the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to
   hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued
   therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the
   'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out
   its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral
   duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous
   dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of
   Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no
   action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the
   consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in
   wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with
   creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the
   comfort of families and the development of commerce."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 217._

EQUITY: A. D. 1253.
   A Lady Keeper of the Seals.

   "Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D.
   1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal
   during his absence, and in that character she in her own
   person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it
   is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with
   justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set
   law and equity more fearfully at naught."

      _L. J. Bigelow,
      Bench and Bar,
      page 28._

EQUITY: A. D. 1258.
   No Writs except De Cursu.

   "In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated;
   two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no
   more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the
   King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing
   independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the
   settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right
   to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in
   unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become
   developed into the final form in which for six centuries they
   were treated as precedents of declaration."

      _M. M. Bigelow,
      History of Procedure,
      page 197._

EQUITY: A. D. 1272-1307.
   The Chancellor's functions.

   "In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in
   the three characters in which we now know him; as a great
   political officer, as the head of a department for the issue
   of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's
   interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's
   grace."

      _Sir William H. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 2, page 146._

{1989}

EQUITY: A. D. 1330.
   Chancery stationary at Westminster.

   "There was likewise introduced about this time a great
   improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the
   Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings
   of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason
   for which was, that the same part of the country, even with
   the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support
   the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due
   to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if
   he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at
   Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many
   palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards
   the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory
   along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This
   grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted
   that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain
   place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for
   that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and
   the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of
   England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor
   may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III.,
   the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to
   follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers
   being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal
   household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the
   Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King,
   so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law
   able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But
   the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the
   places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they
   continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end
   of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and
   the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall,
   and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on
   the judges."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 181._

EQUITY: A. D. 1348.
   "Matters of Grace" committed to the Chancellor.

   "In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace
   were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and
   from this point there begins to develop that body of
   rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the
   harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."

      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      part 2, page 147._

      ALSO IN:
      _Kerly's History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 31._

EQUITY: A. D. 1383.
   Early Instance of Subpoena.

   "It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was
   Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably
   enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it,
   he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in
   that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before
   been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in
   the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name.
   This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and
   answer such things as should be objected against him; upon
   this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of
   complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These
   articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for
   which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and
   therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the
   chancellor."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition),
      volume 3, page 384._

EQUITY: A. D. 1394.
   Chancery with its own Mode of Procedure.

   "From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may
   consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a
   distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction,
   with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which
   had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly
   yet separated from the Council."

      _George Spence,
      Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,
      volume 1, page 345._

EQUITY: A. D. 1422.
   Chancery Cases appear in Year Books.

   "It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to
   exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II.,
   Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any
   report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except
   only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before
   remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first
   equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition),
      volume 3, page 553._

EQUITY: A. D. 1443.
   No distinction between Examination and Answer.

   The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.
   Before that time little, if any, distinction was made
   between the examination and the answer.

      _Kerly,
      History of Courts of Chancery,
      page 51._

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
   Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.

   "A written statement of the grievance being required to be
   filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay
   damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the
   distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by
   petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent
   stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was
   generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to
   the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer,
   commencing with a protestation against the truth or
   sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the
   facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a
   prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were
   likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special
   replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of
   Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the
   modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and
   demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English,
   the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the
   reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out
   metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at
   law, and to stay waste, became frequent."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 309._

{1990}

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.
   Jurisdiction of Chancery over Trusts.

   "The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be
   considered as making its greatest advances in this reign
   [Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a
   feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person
   beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the
   Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad
   rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to
   afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the
   profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause,
   declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the
   feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience
   was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy
   against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the
   trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that
   the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration
   without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They
   therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to
   convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,'
   or person beneficially interested; and the most important
   branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts
   was firmly and irrevocably established."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 309._

EQUITY: A. D. 1538.
   Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

   "Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor,
   and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of
   remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was
   sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited
   authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers,
   though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice
   grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great
   Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he
   should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all
   the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in
   the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with
   the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were
   made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate
   these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of
   the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place,
   pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of
   England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and
   Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference
   between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than
   the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 1, page 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. R. Anson,
      Law and Custom of the Constitution,
      volume 2, page 150._

EQUITY: A. D. 1558.
   Increase of Business in the Court of Chancery.

   "The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much
   increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a
   Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and
   willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The
   Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of
   conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of
   possession, the questions which arose respecting the property
   of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of
   commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of
   important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of
   the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by
   occasionally stealing a few hours from his political
   occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only
   was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during
   term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a
   portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some
   convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his
   arrears."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 2, page 95._

EQUITY: A. D. 1567-1632.
   Actions of Assumpsit in Equity.

   "The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum
   meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more
   surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to
   tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common
   law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the
   jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by
   a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The
   suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the
   amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned
   writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others
   of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill
   against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to
   have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter,
   after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds
   'quod nota.'"

      _J. B. Ames,
      History of Assumpsit
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 59-60)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1592.
   All Chancellors, save one, Lawyers.

   "No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the
   court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found
   a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private
   opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic,
   or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat
   in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices
   Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward
   III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by
   King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was
   indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or
   courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the
   times and the disposition of the prince required, till
   Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which
   time to the present the court of chancery has always been
   filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625,
   when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of
   Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been
   chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, chapter 4._

EQUITY: A. D. 1595.
   Injunctions against Suits at Law.
   Opposition of common law courts.

   "The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this
   opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but
   by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in
   very general words, restrains all application to other
   jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments
   given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has
   been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only
   as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but
   also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the
   thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a
   counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the
   statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after
   judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench.
   Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still
   continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree,
   by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."

      _J. Reeves,
      History English Law (Finlason's edition.),
      volume 5, pages 386-387._

{1991}

EQUITY: A. D. 1596.
   Lord Ellesmere and his Decisions.

   Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come
   down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first
   chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents.
   But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume
   3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 98._

EQUITY: A. D. 1601.
   Cy Pres Doctrine.

   "There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in
   England before the Reformation, although in the earliest
   reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a
   well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the
   traditional favour with which charities had always been
   regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction
   of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the
   fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as
   they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety
   of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious
   houses, and the application of the subject matter of such
   gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different
   Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the
   religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed
   to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the
   latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence
   of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not
   until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually
   merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,
   in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not
   necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that
   actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty
   conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery
   Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and
   independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.
   4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a
   trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery
   Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have
   gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;
   but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the
   Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this
   way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct
   jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts
   respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,
   though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon
   in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.
   If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all
   charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the
   Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was
   still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we
   shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still
   remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see
   hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when
   the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the
   charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles
   of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts
   were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And
   hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,
   though the mode of its application has varied from time to
   time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal
   construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by
   a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth
   with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such
   uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise
   under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as
   operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in
   equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour
   of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be
   supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be
   no connection between the power of the King over the
   administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved
   to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have
   seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his
   capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly
   out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as
   the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.
   By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the
   King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts
   was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable
   corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only
   voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his
   default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'
   which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal
   license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity
   of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared
   illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that
   the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such
   suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary
   sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it
   was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in
   Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in
   Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right
   of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing
   power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,
   became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The
   celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against
   superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory
   recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to
   the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."
   The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent
   developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The
   doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

      _H. L. Manby
      in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,
      volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203._

EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.
   Equity and the Construction of Wills.

   "After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord
   Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay
   by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally
   established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another
   attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the
   validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the
   validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts
   of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the
   Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction
   upon them when their validity has been established."

   _Lord Campbell,
   Lives of the Chancellors,
   volume 2, page 386._

EQUITY: A. D. 1612.
   Right of Redemption.

   The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of
   James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor
   could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral
   agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      page 143._

{1992}

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
   Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.

   "In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable
   dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by
   Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's
   bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or
   against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so
   warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the
   suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in
   chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning
   in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,
   obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being
   brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned
   counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly
   in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave
   judgment in their behalf."

      _W. Blackstone,
      Commentaries,
      book 3, page 54._

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.
   Relief against judgments at law.

   "This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between
   Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to
   restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by
   fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific
   performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate
   remedy, has never since been questioned."

      _J. B. Ames,
      Specific Performance of Contracts
      (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1671.
   The Doctrine of Tacking established.

   "It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if
   there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly
   registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a
   second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may
   purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,
   and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and
   gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the
   first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but
   the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he
   stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his
   money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English
   law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last
   mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had
   notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The
   English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in
   Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir
   Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in
   shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was
   afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master
   of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.
   491]."

      _J. Kent,
      Commentaries,
      part 6, lecture 58._

EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.
   Equitable conversion.

   "He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,
   that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid
   out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to
   collateral heirs."

      _Lord Campbell,
      Lives of the Chancellors,
      volume 4, page 374._

EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.
   Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.

   It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity
   was fully developed. During the twenty years of his
   chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction
   were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as
   authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

      _Kerly,
      History of the Court of Chancery,
      pages 175-177._

EQUITY: A. D. 1742.
   Control of Corporations.

   "That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs
   honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation
   itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The
   only authority before the present century is the case of the
   Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2
   Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent
   decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing
   an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was
   charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for
   lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the
   directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were
   made without proper security. The bill was against the
   directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a
   breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke
   granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well
   worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly
   agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower
   them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.
   In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or
   omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever
   determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every
   breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a
   private or public capacity.'"

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, page 158-159)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1782.
   Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.

   "Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a
   demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it
   were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought
   or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase
   for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that
   plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not
   entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not
   likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it
   at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,
   and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid
   of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the
   defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that
   it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,
   therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later
   in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a
   defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for
   discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,
   though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his
   decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled
   that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by
   demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if
   successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 204-205._

{1993}

EQUITY: A. D. 1786.
   Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

   "As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor
   will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into
   court, an injunction ought to be granted against the
   enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at
   law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for
   more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was
   granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that
   granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.
   Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,
   … an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was
   resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,
   however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.
   This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded
   as settled."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Equity Jurisdiction
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 5, pages 122-123)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1792.
   Negative Pleas.

   "In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,
   657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord
   Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years
   later, the question came before the same judge again, and,
   after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman
   v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,
   in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in
   Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he
   had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,
   and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the
   right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      p. 114, note._

EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.
   Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.

   "'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,
   'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those
   of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking
   care that they are to be applied according to the
   circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines
   of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.
   Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection
   that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the
   Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'
   Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted
   upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of
   equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of
   cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be
   discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent
   Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord
   Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and
   to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

      _D. M. Kerly,
      History Court Chancery,
      page 182._

EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
   Judge Story.

   "We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of
   judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor
   almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the
   history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court
   comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme
   Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these
   decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them
   of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of
   law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.
   When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite
   vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as
   Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up
   the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.
   In questions of international and constitutional law, the
   breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine
   with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there
   is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly
   illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,
   patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so
   called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The
   most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in
   which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;
   Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate
   jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth
   College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the
   charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the
   constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any
   State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his
   dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The
   Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as
   the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These
   are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores
   of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal
   profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of
   his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and
   compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of
   Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those
   of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only
   to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of
   illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand
   alone."

      _Irving Browne,
      Short Studies of Great Lawyers,
      pages 293-295._

EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.
   Chancellor Kent.

   "In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers
   and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly
   defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,
   to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any
   other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the
   English chancery as he deemed applicable under the
   Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction
   of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,
   1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period
   limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he
   retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case
   that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members
   of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an
   address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred
   on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty
   years they say: 'During this long course of services, so
   useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant
   period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of
   decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical
   wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate
   discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our
   jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been
   sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the
   enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may
   hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid
   foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our
   government, in that common law which they claimed for the people
   as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent
   structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command
   the applause of the present generation, and exciting the
   admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

      _Charles B. Waite,
      James Kent
      (Chicago Law Times,
      volume 3, pages 339-341)._

{1994}

EQUITY: A. D. 1821.
   Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.

   "The principle of negative pleas was first established by the
   introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at
   first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure
   negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a
   defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet
   the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some
   material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant
   could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would
   thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the
   bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such
   a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it
   prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully
   established. If they had been well understood, they might have
   proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign
   to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it
   was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief
   and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into
   disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a
   long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an
   answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until
   the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,
   decided in 1821."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 113-114._

EQUITY: A. D. 1834.
   First Statute of Limitations in Equity.

   "None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4
   Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.
   Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions
   at law, but named specifically all actions to which they
   applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.
   If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an
   action at law, and the time for bringing the action was
   limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be
   pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say
   that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have
   been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,
   was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause
   was not one of which a court of equity ought to take
   cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case
   would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

      _C. C. Langdell,
      Summary of Equity Pleading,
      pages 149-150._

EQUITY: A. D. 1836.
   Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in
   England.

   "The most accurate definition of the nature of the property
   acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation
   is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the
   stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to
   have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning
   of the present century. The old idea was rather that the
   corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and
   that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que
   trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.
   … It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.
   268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in
   England."

      _S. Williston,
      History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800
      (Harvard Law Review,
      volume 2, pages 149-151)._

EQUITY: A. D. 1875.
   Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.

   "In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from
   the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has
   conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to
   follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using
   the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right
   of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an
   indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar
   favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of
   books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the
   productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed
   question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of
   intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated
   in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,
   are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the
   public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in
   this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the
   defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.
   J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so
   described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875
   [sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857
   relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The
   extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of
   comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older
   than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and
   copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8
   Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the
   present century."

      _T. E. Holland,
      Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,
      page 183._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. S. Drone,
      Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions._

   ----------EQUITY: End--------

   Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the
   following references:

Agrarian Laws.

      See AGRARIAN.

Assize of Jerusalem.

      See ASSIZE.

Brehon Laws.

      See BREHON.

Canuleian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 445.

Code Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

Common Law.

      See COMMON LAW.

Constitutional Laws.

      See CONSTITUTION.

Debt and Debtors.

      See DEBT.

Dioklesian Laws.

      See DIOKLES.

Dooms of Ihne.

      See DOOMS.

Draconian Laws.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

Factory Laws.

      See FACTORY.

Hortensian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

Licinian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 376.

Lycurgan Laws.

      See SPARTA.

Laws of Manu.

      See MANU.

Navigation Laws.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS.

Ogulnian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 300.

Laws of Oleron.

      See OLERON.

Poor Laws.

      See POOR LAWS.

Publilian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.

Salic Laws.

      See SALIC.

Slave Codes.

      See SLAVERY.

Solonian Laws.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

Tariff Legislation.

      See TARIFF.

Terentilian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

The Twelve Tables.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

Valerian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 509.

Valero-Horatian Law.

      See ROME: B. C. 449.

{1995}

LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

LAWRENCE, Captain James:
   In the War of 1812.

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

LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1862-1876.

LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.
   Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

LAYBACH, Congress of.

      See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

LAZARISTS, The.

   "The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes
   called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not
   unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."
   Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at
   the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name
   Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took
   complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical
   seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the
   Council of Trent, had been established in the various
   dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are
   under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests
   were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to
   Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

      _J. Alzog
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, pages 463-465._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. L. S. Lear,
      Priestly Life in France,
      chapter 5._

LAZICA.
LAZIC WAR.

   "Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and
   Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541
   the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having
   accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the
   Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt
   by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong
   post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who
   claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and
   established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great
   severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians
   were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did
   so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a
   Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became
   obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were
   taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The
   Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of
   Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine
   years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great
   length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one
   which vitally concerned the interests of their country.
   According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon
   holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the
   Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his
   fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the
   shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew
   from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual
   tribute for their possession of the country.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bury,
      Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1)._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

LAZZI, The.

      See LÆTI.

LEAGUE, The Achaian.

   See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.

LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.

LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE, The Delian.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

LEAGUE, The Holy,
of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI.,
the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II.
against Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEAGUE, The Irish Land.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LEAGUE, The Swabian.

      See LANDFRIEDE, &c.

LEAGUE, The Union.

      See UNION LEAGUE.

LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.

LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.

LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

      See RHINE LEAGUE.

LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

LEAGUES, The Grey.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).

      See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

      See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.

{1996}

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"),
and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.

LEE, Richard Henry,
   And the American Revolution.

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

LEE, Richard Henry,
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
   Campaign in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.,
   Command on the Peninsula.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
   Campaign against Pope.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
   First invasion of Maryland.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
   Defeat of Hooker.

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

LEE, General Robert E.
   The second movement of invasion.
   Gettysburg and after.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.
   Last Campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LEEDS, Battle at (1643).

   Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,
   was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the
   23d of January, 1643.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 9._

LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.

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

LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.

      See WEST INDIES.

LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

LEFT, The.
   Left Center, The.

      See RIGHT, &c.

LEGATE.

   This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or
   associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor
   to be his second-in-authority.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

LEGES JULIÆ,
LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.

      See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.

LEGION, The Roman.

   "The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar
   to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided
   into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The
   long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans
   to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their
   army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate
   bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion
   now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted
   of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average
   strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines
   of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.
   The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest
   troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called
   'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the
   third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and
   were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.
   The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move
   the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'
   or to withdraw the 'hastati' back into the intervals of the
   'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The
   light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the
   solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged
   their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the
   combat."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1)._

   "The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time
   of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which
   achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of
   Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial
   legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed
   infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided
   into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders
   of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The
   first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the
   custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most
   approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts
   consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary
   infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually
   drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet
   was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,
   without which the force of the legion would have remained
   imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
   first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132
   men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

      _E. Gibbon
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

   The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided
   into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed
   Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles
   X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct
   line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of
   Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of
   the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,
   Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis
   Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,
   and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in
   both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was
   extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de
   Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still
   maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis
   Philippe.

LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.

LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.

      See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.

{1997}

   ----------LEIPSIC: Start----------

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.
   Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.
   Second Battle of Breitenfeld.
   Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.
   Regained by the French.
   The great "Battle of the Nations."

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;
      1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

   ----------LEIPSIC: End----------

LEIPSIC, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

LEITH, The Concordat of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

LEKHS, The.

      See LYGIANS.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

LELANTIAN FIELDS.
LELANTIAN FEUD.

      See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.

LELEGES, The.

   "The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were
   however not merely designated in groups, according to the
   countries out of which they came, but certain collective names
   existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among
   all these names the most widely spread was that of the
   Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a
   mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these
   Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of
   coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the
   people of Ionic Greeks."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

LELIAERDS.

   In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of
   the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish
   for lily.

      _J. Hutton,
      James and Philip van Arteveld,
      page 32, foot-note._

LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LE MANS, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

LEMNOS.

   One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean
   Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently
   associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious
   worship of the Cabeiri.

LEMOVICES, The.

   The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's
   time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin
   —department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._

   The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from
   the Lemovices.

LEMOVII, The.

   A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic
   coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on
   that of the Gothones.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

LENAPE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LENTIENSES, The.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.

   Leo II., Pope, 682-683.

   Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.

   Leo III., Pope, 795-816.

   Leo III. (called The Isaurian),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

   Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.

   Leo IV., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.

   Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.

   Leo V., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.

   Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.

   Leo VI., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.

   Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.

   Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.

   Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.

   Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.

   Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.

   Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.

   Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.

LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LEODIS (WEREGILD).

      See GRAF.

LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

   ----------LEON: Start--------

LEON,
   Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.

   "This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by
   its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum
   Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

LEON:
   Origin of the kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

LEON:
   Union of the kingdom with Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.

   ----------LEON: End--------

LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

LEONINE CITY, The

      See VATICAN.

LEONTINI.
   The Leontine War.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.

LEOPOLD I.,
   Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;
   King of Hungary, 1655-1705:
   King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

   Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.

   Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and
   Bohemia, 1790-1792.

   Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.

LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1321.

LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

LEPTA.

      See TALENT.

LEPTIS MAGNA.

   "The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was
   the capital of this part of the province [the tract of
   north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater
   Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of
   Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region
   of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the
   site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which
   are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three
   together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this
   region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.
   Hence the modern appellation."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2)._

      See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

{1998}

LERIDA: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.

         See ROME: B. C. 49.

LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,
   Sieges and battle.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LERIDA: A. D. 1707.
   Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

   ----------LESBOS: Start--------

LESBOS.

   The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the
   Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was
   particularly distinguished in the early literary history of
   ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian
   school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion
   were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the
   important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,
   but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the
   fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene
   (which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized
   the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene
   by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that
   struggle.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 14 and 50._

      See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

LESBOS: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

   ----------LESBOS: End--------

LESCHE, The.

   The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of
   the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a
   place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly
   the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in
   winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their
   juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric race,
      volume 2, page 396._

   "The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original
   source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was
   the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the
   public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and
   exchanged merry talk."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, page 220 (American edition)._

LESCO V.,
   Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.

   Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.

LESE-MAJESTY.

   A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the
   Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the
   king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in
   the crime of "lese-majesty."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 21, section 786._

LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.

      See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

      See PRIVATEERS.

LETTRE DE CACHET.

   "In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private
   letter of state: a name given especially to a written order
   proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a
   secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means
   of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and
   18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without
   trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,
   often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous
   pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

      _Century Dictionary._

   "The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet
   to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the
   administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as
   50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more
   lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a
   profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to
   get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were
   inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of
   imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through
   good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a
   lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too
   good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The
   government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the
   friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or
   mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible
   orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was
   the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost
   all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their
   pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor
   fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

      _J. Michelet,
      Historical View of the French Revolution,
      introduction, part 2, section 9._

LETTS.

      See LITHUANIANS.

LEUCADIA,
LEUCAS.

   Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of
   Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who
   cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the
   same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian
   League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of
   the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which
   crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's
   suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

LEUCÆ, Battle of.

   The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans
   by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to
   resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls
   of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success
   and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus
   surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in
   Pergamum was ended.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

LEUCI, The.

   A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the
   modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the
   Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEUDES.

   "The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were
   called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'
   'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.
   de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means
   a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army
   or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free
   fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time
   the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent
   and powerful warriors alone."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 12, foot-note._

{1999}

LEUGA, The.

   "The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked
   according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and
   up to the end of the second century this applied also to those
   [the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was
   taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile
   correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a
   Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and
   a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German
   'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Romans,
      book 8, chapter 3._

LEUKAS.

      See KORKYRA.

LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

LEUTHEN, Battle of.

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

LEVELLERS, The.

   "Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary
   Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement
   more particularly against the House of Lords, were the
   pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of
   his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …
   which … were popular with the common soldiers of the
   Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the
   democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the
   House of Lords and see England governed by a single
   Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of
   democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,
   distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough
   ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable
   under the name of The Levellers."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 3, book 4, chapter 1._

   "They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic
   Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying
   out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of
   the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate
   varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.
   The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely
   denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise
   they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no
   man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own
   conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and
   found their interpretation of it carrying them further and
   further away from English traditions and habits, whether of
   Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which
   broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern
   vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being
   executed.

      _J. A. Picton,
      Oliver Cromwell,
      chapter 17._

LEWES, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

   ----------LEXINGTON: Start--------

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.

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

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

   ----------LEXINGTON: End--------

LEXOVII, The.

   The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in
   the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,
   in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between
   Caen and Evreux.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

   ----------LEYDEN: Start--------

LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.
   Siege by the Spaniards.
   Relief by the flooding of the land.
   The founding of the University.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;
      and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.

LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.
   The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

   ----------LEYDEN: End--------

LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.

      See LAMAS.

LIA-FAIL, The.

   "The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians
   in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish
   histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other
   extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the
   Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the
   Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The
   Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange
   noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch
   of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was
   attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be
   ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted
   success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the
   kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some
   writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it
   remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince,
   who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was
   preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into
   England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair
   of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the
   opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still
   remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in
   that case was not carried to Scotland."

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2, and foot-note._

      See, also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

LIBBY PRISON.

      See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

LIBERAL ARTS, The Seven.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM,

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.

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

LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

LIBERI HOMINES.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

LIBERIA, The founding of the Republic of.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

LIBERTINES OF GENEVA, The.

   The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in
   Geneva were called Libertines.

      _F. P. Guizot,
      John Calvin,
      chapter 9-16._

LIBERTINI.

      See INGENUI.

LIBERTY BELL, The.

      See INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{2000}

LIBERTY BOYS.

   The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American
   Revolution were familiarly known.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;
      and LIBERTY TREE.

LIBERTY CAP.

   "This emblem, like many similar ones received by the
   revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to
   those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the
   first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of
   Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the
   regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for
   participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy
   in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the
   mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said
   it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but
   glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of
   the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to
   purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it
   themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a
   symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its
   first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension
   amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the
   'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his
   immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet
   rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But
   even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the
   Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had
   placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité
   vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on
   which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at
   all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of
   prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty,
   amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike
   became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."

      _A. de Lamartine,
      History of the Girondists,
      book 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

LIBERTY GAP, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1847.

LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.

   "Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never
   forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in
   your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of
   Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as
   Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes
   as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which
   it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that
   obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the
   first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. …
   At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before
   active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the
   Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of
   it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from
   Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were
   visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the
   neighboring country. Business was almost suspended.
   Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the
   figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do
   so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed
   upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every
   class and condition," were borne through the city and then
   burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the
   crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took
   place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree,
   inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the
   year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty,
   February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty
   Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a
   flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended
   above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was
   the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In
   August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to
   the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by
   a party led by one Job Williams."

      _S. A. Drake,
      Old Landmarks of Boston,
      chapter 14._

LIBERUM VETO, The.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

LIBRA, The Roman.

    The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus,
    from which the modern names of the livre and pound are
    derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams,
    and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, AS.

   ----------LIBRARIES: Start--------

LIBRARIES:
   Ancient, Babylonia and Assyria.

   "The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing
   people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The
   books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with
   a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and
   plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of
   which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus
   and possibly also parchment were employed as writing
   materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the
   texts."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians,
      page 30._

   "We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed.
   Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of
   the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded.
   The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were
   pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed
   the steam which was generated during the process of baking to
   escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the
   tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of
   mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our
   best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed
   by a square headed instrument."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      p. 105._

{2001}

   Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest
   and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal
   patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the
   grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."

      _G. Smith,
      Assyrian Discoveries,
      chapter 18._

   "Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old
   sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the
   chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in
   Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the
   tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at
   Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the
   banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished
   decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets,
   methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with
   detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the
   works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series,
   each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The
   account of the creation, which begins with the phrase:
   'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,'
   was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;'
   'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end.
   Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of
   his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity
   should know how much he has done for literature. His name is
   inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern.
   'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of
   multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the
   goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to
   discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the
   kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo,
   the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I
   have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I
   have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu,
   although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly
   well supplied."

      _G. Maspéro,
      Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
      chapter 16._

   Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by
   Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had
   copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors.
   Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal
   belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a
   collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib,
   B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short
   histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the
   collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its
   original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681,
   added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the
   inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing
   compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal.
   Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every
   variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in
   the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by
   his statements they appear to have been intended for the
   inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the
   Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of
   historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of
   Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various
   other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties,
   despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and
   ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library.
   There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from
   despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes
   on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and
   was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and
   mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of
   districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the
   law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans,
   deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and
   taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming
   some approach to a census and general account of the empire.
   One large and important section of the library was devoted to
   legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from
   other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero
   Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends
   gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this
   description give various fables and stories of evil spirits.
   The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the
   gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise
   of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of
   men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as
   during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign,
   &c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and
   works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the
   various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected
   with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and
   inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works
   on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals,
   birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in
   classes, according to their character and affinities as then
   understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods,
   &c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including
   square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c.
   Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the
   Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been
   written in a different language and style of writing, hence it
   was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of
   these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars,
   dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the
   principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling
   the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some
   of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which
   Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably
   numbered over 10,000 clay documents."

      _George Smith,
      Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria,
      pages 188-191._

   "It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry
   Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially
   explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by
   sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double
   chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the
   immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.
   … Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this
   treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again
   and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George
   Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not
   exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained
   unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities
   and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the
   exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the
   temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,
   resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the
   shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five
   centuries ago. …
{2002}
   From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or
   Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose
   libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be
   inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that
   collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at
   Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the
   remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the
   Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick
   inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur
   built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as
   that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies
   made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know
   much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British
   Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians
   of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an
   office. … Its inscription is given thus by
   Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of
   the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his
   servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we
   know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was
   from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of
   legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account
   of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in
   more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is
   nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a
   treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school
   of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was
   the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been
   largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of
   it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and
   others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from
   here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a
   portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.
   … To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work
   containing an account of the creation and the wars of the
   gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet
   bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the
   god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of
   tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show
   that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was
   as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know
   more."

      _The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria
      (Knowledge, November 24, 1882,
      and March 2, 1883)._

   "One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
   explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
   library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
   Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
   not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
   literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
   of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
   represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
   characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
   meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
   plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
   of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
   preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
   spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
   their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
   termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
   which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
   Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
   accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
   from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
   dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
   placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 1._

LIBRARIES:
   Greece.

   "Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who
   supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public
   use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and
   pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of
   books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and
   burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and
   carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called
   Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them
   should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was
   the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by
   ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries.
   Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent
   one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The
   books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public
   libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of
   miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred
   collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the
   ceremonies of their religion."

      _Aulus Gellius,
      The Attic Nights,
      book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2),
      with foot-note by W. Beloe._

   "If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and
   dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means
   spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room
   necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much
   closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in
   circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood.
   The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple
   at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in
   breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The
   pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing
   at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity,
   and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the
   manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally
   these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends
   outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the
   various treatises being written on pendant labels."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      volume 2, page 84._

   "The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the
   difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the
   'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the
   amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any
   single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have
   been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the
   enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,
   which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would
   have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.
{2003}
   We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by
   volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at
   once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of
   'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the
   ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary
   contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections
   of the present day."

      _Libraries, Ancient and Modern
      (Edinburgh Review,
      January, 1874)._

LIBRARIES:
   Alexandria.

   "The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to
   render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most
   commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the
   cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian
   emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a
   society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our
   academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated
   museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion;
   and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says
   Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those
   kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the
   successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion
   already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the
   edifice could not well make room for any more, or being
   desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally
   famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a
   second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum,
   situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part
   of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a
   length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war
   with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which
   happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated
   with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if
   any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all
   probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever
   after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes
   and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and
   Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library
   of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius
   and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the
   Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of
   Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in
   the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and
   Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions
   that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the
   purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in
   his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a
   long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was
   only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius.
   Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this
   last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is
   beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who,
   twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and
   assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of
   books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy
   Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence
   of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of
   the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so
   many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important
   subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the
   fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others,
   640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of
   ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain
   disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D.
   636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his
   lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more
   than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of
   ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At
   length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward
   Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back
   a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental
   history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a
   Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In
   those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have
   surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the
   Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou
   Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and
   Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science
   that John had attained, treated him with every distinction,
   and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which
   were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of
   intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained
   the learned man about his person. John one day said to him,
   "You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have
   put your seal on all the different things you found there. I
   say nothing about those treasures which have any value for
   you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you
   make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted
   Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the
   royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing,"
   Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all
   true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to
   Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer
   from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention,
   either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book
   is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's
   book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in
   consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed
   amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In
   this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this
   account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at
   once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since
   Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was
   discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was
   Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to
   Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the
   circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But
   what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has
   actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in
   his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college
   that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which
   contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were
   situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian,
   who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred
   years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot,
   covered with ruins and rubbish.
{2004}
   Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal
   Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal
   edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion;
   and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not
   necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or
   even two historians, several persons of learning and research
   have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des
   Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its
   authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather
   suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And,
   lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon,
   completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once
   expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt,
   should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The
   first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who
   lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the
   Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his
   Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the
   second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a
   History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life
   of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest
   circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these
   two historians should have been ignorant of so important a
   circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply
   interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it,
   though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no
   distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for
   the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after,
   on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why
   should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have
   acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his
   character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a
   German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius
   (Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the
   very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar
   an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and
   obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he,
   'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot
   describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say,
   that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable
   Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your
   Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and
   sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the
   request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It
   is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to
   exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its
   importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not
   overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then
   could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to
   Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? …
   Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same
   terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no
   great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises,
   that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at
   the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true,
   as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the
   celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what
   manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when
   Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must
   observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in
   the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the
   Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to
   mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors,
   Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we
   shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still
   exist in later times."

      _Historical Researches on the pretended burning
      of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens
      (Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844)._

   "After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in
   regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the
   700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been
   destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that
   another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian
   literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding
   the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that
   is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account
   of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."

      _C. W. Super,
      Alexandria and its Libraries
      (National Quarterly Review, December, 1875)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      _E. Edwards,
      Libraries and the Founders of Libraries,
      chapter 1._

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;
      and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

LIBRARIES:
   Pergamum.

      See PERGAMUM.

LIBRARIES:
   Rome.

   Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who
   established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was
   undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the
   lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was
   the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the
   beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he
   made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had
   taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to
   all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were
   to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,
   according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the
   literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,
   conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed
   in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished
   historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,
   that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library
   which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to
   be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These
   exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him
   the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to
   the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,
   and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like
   many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,
   remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,
   may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was
   placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in
   truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence
   and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was
   probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.
{2005}
   From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes
   to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as
   appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge
   of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;
   that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the
   Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom
   he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their
   statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for
   suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works
   and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one
   as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other
   (not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose
   historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in
   his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the
   Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected
   MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria
   expressly to copy or to correct works which were there
   preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by
   Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by
   Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a
   Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple
   of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian
   Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by
   Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the
   Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans
   one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus
   found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to
   have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,
   some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a
   passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,
   some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been
   mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which
   was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his
   letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to
   the names and services of those who were employed in binding
   and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the
   long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a
   scintilla of information extant, other than that which has
   been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were
   entertained of important additions to classical learning from
   remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our
   knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.
   But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either
   fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary
   character of the results attained."

      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      pages 26-29._

   "Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius,
   ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the
   morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At
   Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls
   has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a
   library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the
   younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the
   fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls
   with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight
   of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome
   possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was
   opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of
   Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus,
   viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius,
   Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the
   Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being
   the most important of all."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      The Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      p. 531._

LIBRARIES:
   Herculaneum.

   "Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to
   the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were
   employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance
   which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to
   systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however,
   before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to
   Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet.
   In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them
   Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful
   researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in
   getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin
   volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek,
   and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was
   excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of
   Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly
   brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its
   fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni
   himself; at other times from the notes and observations of
   travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are
   described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all
   black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them
   falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many
   letters were observed, by which it was first known that the
   rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much
   burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the
   beginning of the present century the attention of the British
   government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. …
   Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government
   for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to
   Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the
   results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission
   subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was
   still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House
   of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It
   reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful
   results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of
   Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and
   to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its
   thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly
   interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, …
   'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been
   generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually
   supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but
   were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves
   being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance
   which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change
   of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of
   ages. The nature of this substance being known, the
   destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical
   investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of
   accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or
   destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey
   Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent
   communications to the Royal Society.
{2006}
   Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a
   solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it,
   applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the
   layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of
   ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of
   air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water.
   'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the
   fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek
   characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were
   probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the
   roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the
   superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and
   folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed
   together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps;
   in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on
   by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely
   divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum,
   wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters
   were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to
   state that, according to the information given him, the number
   of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the
   Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been
   unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been
   operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible;
   that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the
   remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority
   were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated
   as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to
   120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere
   adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared
   much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great
   body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine
   are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three
   of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes,
   Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these
   works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are
   either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and
   general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"

      _E. Edwards,
      Memoirs of Libraries,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 5._

LIBRARIES:
   Constantinople.

   "When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium
   the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the
   city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called
   it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the
   Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the
   reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the
   most diligent search to be made after those books which had been
   doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of
   such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these
   he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library
   at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of
   books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand
   nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the
   emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of
   whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these,
   more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command
   of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments
   that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the
   worship of images. In this library was deposited the only
   authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been
   asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters,
   were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent
   copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the
   weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones.
   The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no
   means favourable to the interests of literature. During the
   reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry)
   literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have
   employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library,
   the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final
   subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of
   Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the
   literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial
   Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror,
   and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio;
   until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion,
   sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library
   to his hatred against the Christians."

      _T. H. Horne,
      Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,
      pages 23-25._

LIBRARIES:
   Tripoli.
   Destruction of Library by Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

LIBRARIES:
   Mediæval.

   Monastic Libraries.

   "In every monastery there was established first a library,
   then great studios, where, to increase the number of books,
   skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally,
   schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for,
   instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda,
   at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at
   Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous
   libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one
   for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at
   Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium,
   where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts.
   At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed
   with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable
   jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the
   abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it
   contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures
   of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their
   sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love
   the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If
   we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of
   learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly
   all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for
   most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal
   and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns
   was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known
   how many services to learning and history were rendered by
   their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought
   to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which
   the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some
   of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of
   the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in
   the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic
   learning.
{2007}
   Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of
   the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the
   claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the
   principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer
   to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the
   earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it
   were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the
   depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of
   Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express
   mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the
   seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of
   Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for
   and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he
   brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of
   Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into
   a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on
   with England. About the same time, during the wars which
   ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now
   the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the
   abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had,
   according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of
   Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh
   century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000
   volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks
   saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was
   destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an
   immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value
   of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany,
   and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand,
   some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot
   Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest
   collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus
   created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the
   intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There
   were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all
   the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has
   been said of the excessive price of certain books during the
   middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this
   theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies
   that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred
   sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several
   marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this
   always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say
   that the books bought for such high prices were admirable
   specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would
   be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at
   sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that
   since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in
   price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia
   for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a
   much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of
   Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land
   to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which
   that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved
   their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in
   modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of
   theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks.
   Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that
   this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in
   all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the
   principal monastic libraries during those centuries which
   historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence;
   and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great
   Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by
   the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the
   Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the
   principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the
   other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the
   devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy,
   France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some
   monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the
   superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain
   small number of precious works, how can we forget that without
   these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely
   nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the
   books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero,
   Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his
   correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace,
   Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had
   been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of
   David."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 18, chapter 4 (volume 6)._

   "It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we
   find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.
   Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,
   and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably
   the earliest library formed in England. Among the other
   English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess
   catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,
   described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at
   Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution
   of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the
   basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus
   scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed
   much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases
   affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at
   least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be
   used within about six feet of their proper place; and since
   the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the
   sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first
   into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed
   to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front
   edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was
   once chained in a library; and usually a little further
   investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the
   sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture
   of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or
   inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending
   was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally
   at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the
   volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the
   arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in
   A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the
   words of the register of the monastery itself, only
   translating the Latin into English.
{2008}
   'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld
   is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases
   (columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first
   and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is
   the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of
   them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and
   number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on
   the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain
   letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,
   which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to
   which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf
   to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with
   the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in
   each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second
   shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with
   numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were
   marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'
   because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled
   one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said
   library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on
   the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered
   letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more
   quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,
   the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the
   register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini
   MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,
   founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or
   prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight
   books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,
   twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all
   three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several
   treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably
   over a thousand."

      _F. Madan,
      Books in Manuscript,
      pp. 76-79._

LIBRARIES:
   Renaissance.

   Italy.

   On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at
   first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and
   princes and even great religious institutions possessed far
   fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library
   belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in
   the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of
   abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral
   of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian,
   the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of
   Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This
   slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious
   volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art.
   Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures.
   The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and
   exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took
   pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the
   margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the
   parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich
   settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with
   gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with
   patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with
   niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of
   these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the
   cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient
   authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to
   chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was
   extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might
   be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the
   learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he
   gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the
   monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in
   which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the
   Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to
   the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the
   copyists. It is true that at the great universities
   'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students,
   were certified and subjected to the control of special censors
   called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when
   they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their
   incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's
   invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to
   which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a
   cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who
   spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and
   other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you
   think they would understand their own works? There is no check
   upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of
   their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a
   necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well
   paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the
   most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio,
   to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli
   transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the
   nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the
   first step toward the revival of learning implied three
   things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be
   saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation
   of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the
   invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply,
   conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the
   collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a
   few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the
   universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no
   sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. …
   The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who
   unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from
   corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them.
   Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of
   explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the
   convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of
   Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and
   France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be
   evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It
   was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da
   Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly
   before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the
   apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the
   saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their
   own libraries. …
{2009}
   'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he
   understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a
   monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the
   library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly,
   pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio
   went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so
   great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw
   grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches
   thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn
   the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many
   and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them
   had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all
   round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length,
   lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men
   should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches,
   he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he
   asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so
   disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to
   gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and
   making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they
   manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy
   contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of
   Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian
   scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine
   monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau,
   Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many
   lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students
   with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in
   mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S.
   Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. …
   'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large
   to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet
   and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect
   and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according
   to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure
   dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which
   condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am
   firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those
   ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men,
   we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many
   whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides
   Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the
   fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the
   Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of
   Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history
   when money was spent more freely upon the collection and
   preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was
   put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning,
      chapter 3._

LIBRARIES: Modern.
   Europe: Rise and growth of the greater Libraries.

   In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de
   Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an
   examination of the literary and numerical value of the
   principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in
   this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna,
   regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means
   equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held,
   until the French revolution, the first place among the
   libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other
   institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. …
   No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence,
   dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of
   which has been frequently carried back to the days of St.
   Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have
   deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the
   Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in
   1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the
   term would require us to withhold from it this title, until
   the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in
   1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the
   libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to
   have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on
   account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the
   passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so
   readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every
   petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries
   of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others
   having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of
   historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier
   to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their
   foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican,
   and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of
   Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than
   ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase
   of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive,
   although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in
   nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of
   manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often
   without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the
   different sources, which have always been more or less at the
   command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the
   Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the
   progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this
   institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its
   removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the
   Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In
   the course of the following year, this number was raised to
   16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the
   ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before
   the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been
   augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Historical Studies,
      pages 278-281._

   "The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is
   probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to
   have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town
   Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at
   Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484;
   that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of
   Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550;
   that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was
   founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in
   1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it
   now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was
   founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640
   it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775,
   150,000; in 1790, 200,000."

      _E. Edwards,
      A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in
      Europe and the United States Of America,
      (Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848)._

{2010}

LIBRARIES: Modern.
   Germany.

   According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"),
   for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000
   printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University
   Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101
   incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed
   books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library,
   400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and
   175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large
   collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library,
   300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000
   manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library,
   250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg
   University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts;
   Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500
   manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and
   100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000
   books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000
   pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche
   Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library;
   Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000
   manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139
   volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including
   2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about
   200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000
   manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of
   books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000
   printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037
   manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald
   University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800
   manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes,
   3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes;
   Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235
   incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library,
   120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes,
   including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts;
   Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
   Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal
   Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover
   City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library,
   159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library,
   217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library,
   80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes;
   Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City
   Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000
   volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library,
   300,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

   "The Munich library, … in matter of administration,
   resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully
   catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in
   doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the
   historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon,
   and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The
   Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were
   retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The
   catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to
   please, and the worker feels no special affection for the
   institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists
   an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one
   can readily give the information needful in filling up the
   call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally
   meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing
   is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The
   most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of
   books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at
   eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at
   three; and those after three are delivered the same day if
   possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is
   known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the
   benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed
   at the outer door of the building a box into which one can
   deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find
   the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the
   climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other
   duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here
   alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is
   only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important
   item."

      _J. H. Gore,
      Library Facilities for Study in Europe
      (Educational Review, June, 1893)._

   In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00
   reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by
   14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The
   expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city
   treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."

      _The Library Journal, May, 1892._

LIBRARIES: France:
   The Bibliothèque Nationale.

   "The history of the vast collection of books which is now,
   after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de
   Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,
   for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of
   the names under which the Library has, at different times,
   been known. The first period is that in which the Library was
   nothing more than the private collection of each successive
   sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his
   journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or
   that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then
   fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be
   considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred
   the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it
   a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its
   abode has often been changed since, it has never again been
   attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.
   The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,
   and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time
   the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all
   men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general
   public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not
   regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the
   Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but
   was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's
   private library at Windsor is national property.
{2011}
   Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this
   period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of
   distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the
   Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed
   national property, and it was decreed that it should
   henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it
   bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,
   in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of
   course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'
   in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the
   'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"

      _Imperial Library of Paris
      (Westminster Review, April, 1870)._

   After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again
   became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the
   spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France
   contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154
   "'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report
   was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to
   consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue
   of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable
   to the printing of the catalogue.

      _The Nation,
      May 17, 1894_.

   Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1)
   gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the
   library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3)
   copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The
   printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so
   that if the text and the illustrations are printed at
   different places there is a chance, unless everyone is
   careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the
   greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the
   Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our
   librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to
   lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper
   in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come,
   registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied
   up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are
   bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin
   in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of
   5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and
   in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the
   titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden
   binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a
   series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card
   catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted
   catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The
   books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and
   1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided
   between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds
   ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds
   intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged
   in series according to the subject divisions given above and
   under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog
   and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If
   then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the
   attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it
   treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he
   tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average
   half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear
   witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in
   the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes
   in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the
   other hand, when they reported certain works not in the
   library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I
   dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed
   when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of
   authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of
   subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill
   40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has
   50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new
   store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de
   lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened,
   like the British Museum, in the evening."

      _C. A. Cutter,
      Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale
      (Library Journal, June, 1894)._

LIBRARIES: France:
   Paris Municipal Libraries.

   "The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid
   development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only
   nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four
   practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the
   Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that
   altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of
   volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to
   147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882.
   … A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each
   library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated;
   Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant,
   300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal
   Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884
   the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being
   intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new
   libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing
   requirements of some of the libraries already established. The
   individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very
   considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the
   twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831
   volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year.
   Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's
   Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The
   libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening
   from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during
   the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent
   out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the
   experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second
   arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that
   nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number
   of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085.
   … Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies,
   there are a certain number of popular free libraries
   established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without
   dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which
   have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are
   now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."

      _E. C. Thomas,
      The Popular Libraries of Paris
      (Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14)._

{2012}

   "The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29,
   of this year (1891), the substance of the following account:
   … The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of
   which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls;
   they are open at the times when the factories and shops are
   closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings
   or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for
   the administration and support, while in each precinct a
   committee of superintendence attends to the choice and
   ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city,
   which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the
   trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are
   bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are
   employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated
   in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine
   libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only
   3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the
   average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the
   libraries."

      _Public Libraries in Paris;
      translated from the Börsenblatt,
      October 7, 1891
      (Library Journal, May, 1892)._

LIBRARIES: France:
   Other Libraries.

   A library of importance in Paris second only to the great
   National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000
   incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the
   University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of
   Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the
   Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392
   manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes
   and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the
   provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal
   Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal
   Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City
   Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City
   Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172
   volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and
   1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the
   Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts;
   Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts;
   Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800
   manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts;
   Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000
   volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500
   manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
    Italy.

   "There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which
   the present National Government, in recognition of former
   Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in
   some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich
   country would find an impediment in developing a proper
   National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury,
   is far from being in a position to offer the world a single
   library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library
   which shall rank with the great national libraries of the
   future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she
   has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not
   one which is able to meet the great demands of modern
   scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of
   fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in
   libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in
   amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have
   found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than
   elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification
   has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of
   librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern
   gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master
   of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in
   Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a
   great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the
   advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere
   during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time,
   with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of
   which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are
   allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. …
   In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate
   to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the
   wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is
   doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find
   in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at
   all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its
   capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started
   the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when
   later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital
   was given another library, got together in a similar way,
   which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele.
   Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its
   functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important;
   indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in
   manuscripts."

      _J. Winsor,
      The condition of Italian Libraries
      (The Nation, July 9, 1891)._

LIBRARIES:
   The Vatican Library.

   "Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who
   conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the
   flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.
   Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is
   nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous
   library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable
   busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant
   arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and
   along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something
   to please and interest him. … The printed books number about
   125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The
   books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around
   the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in
   white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay
   appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of
   founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,
   in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the
   manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his
   death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of
   them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus
   IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.
   In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus
   V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In
   the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented
   by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and
   the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of
   Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …
{2013}
   The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,
   captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented
   it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in
   Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke
   Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was
   added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable
   accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,
   containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus
   Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to
   2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent
   library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and
   Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the
   downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of
   Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of
   Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some
   of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the
   Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part
   taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,
   immediately complied with the royal request, and many
   manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent
   back to Germany."

      _E. L. Didier,
      The Vatican Library
      (Literary World, June 28, 1884)._

   The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are
   from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library,
   422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386
   manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor
   Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts;
   Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453
   pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library,
   251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia
   University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100
   manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and
   4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark,
   401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016
   manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960
   pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library,
   106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts;
   Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000
   manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326
   manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National
   Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts;
   Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets,
   etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000
   books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena
   Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890
   manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:
  Austria-Hungary.

   The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain
   as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373
   incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court
   Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000
   manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes,
   1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes
   and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz
   University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets,
   etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708
   manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed
   books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts;
   Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150
   manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes;
   Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

 LIBRARIES:
   Switzerland.

   The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following:
   Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and
   about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes
   and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University
   Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about
   40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730
   manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich
   City Library, 130,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Holland.

   The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in
   the German handbook, _"Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University
   Library_, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400
   manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht
   University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;
   Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Belgium.

   Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000
   manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of
   Gand, 300,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

   The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain
   as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes;
   Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen
   University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund
   University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library,
   300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala
   University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Spain.

   The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona
   Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid
   University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;
   Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and
   870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;
   Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid
   University Library, 32,000 volumes.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

LIBRARIES:
   Russia.

   "The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the
   government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the
   library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public
   Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies
   from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth
   century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial
   Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count
   Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years
   collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000
   manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.
   His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes
   taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747
   Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761
   bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years
   later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to
   St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and
   over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost
   in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it
   numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been
   stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be
   found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.
{2014}
   To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the
   Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection
   during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,
   and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the
   French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many
   palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …
   besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.
   … The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes
   being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers
   it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the
   largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later
   years the village schools began to open libraries for limited
   circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully
   maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily
   increased among the people."

      _A. V. Babine,
      Libraries in Russia,
      (Library Journal, March, 1893)._

   The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German
   yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow
   University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University
   Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;
   Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan
   University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,
   118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;
   Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg
   University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial
   Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:
   England: The King's Library and the British Museum.

   "No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive
   collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term)
   except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be
   added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some
   uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his
   collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the
   catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed,
   been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased,
   as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to
   our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the
   invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in
   every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various
   presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to
   solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new
   year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to
   it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of
   Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the
   celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS.
   of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St.
   James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign
   could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and
   arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759
   King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to
   the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the
   arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from,
   and the several royal collections interspersed with the other
   books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and
   various other sources. … George III., on his accession to
   the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly
   contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their
   ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create
   an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it
   to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which
   engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his
   reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq.,
   the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762,
   'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul
   Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue
   which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich
   in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian
   literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and
   it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace
   commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent
   collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown
   the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two
   large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome
   octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven
   apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to
   the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal
   Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the
   Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons
   that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be
   placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from
   the Museum Library."

      _Gentleman's Magazine, 1834,
      pages 16-22._

   "In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great
   national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the
   liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or
   other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large
   enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning.
   In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of
   science originated simply in the public spirit of private
   persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that
   period of our history when the distinctively national, or
   governmental, care for the interests of literature and of
   science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As
   regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since
   the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern
   for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first
   and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards
   Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon
   proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just
   the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give
   saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary
   rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and
   repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as
   well to the political importance as to the educational value
   of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that
   such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and
   of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of
   popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again,
   that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures
   of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to
   far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until
   the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans
   Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those
   efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim
   to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder
   of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity
   for the foundation.
{2015}
   Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own
   Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the
   Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of
   wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted
   country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had
   previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the
   hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder,
   and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost
   unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John,
   when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the
   historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money,
   together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal
   favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he
   afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been
   estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his
   various collections about £50,000; so that even from the
   mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to
   have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual
   National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point
   of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow,
   one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer
   standard, the third, in order of time, of the
   Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian
   Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the
   Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of
   Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history
   and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first
   Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the
   first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to
   rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or
   eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically,
   then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and
   Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate
   their relative position in accordance with the successive
   steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized.
   But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is
   attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the
   passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or
   Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection
   of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for
   the better reception and more convenient use of the said
   Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions
   thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those
   already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal
   Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal
   collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the
   words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of
   the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir
   Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,
   also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of
   Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry,
   prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his
   privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has
   a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose
   united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the
   creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none,
   of its kind, in the world."

      _E. Edwards,
      Founders of the British Museum,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a
   general repository, and the collections were removed to it.
   … On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was
   opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the
   Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed
   Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each
   of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.'
   The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to
   provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House
   proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian
   Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley
   Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an
   additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which
   were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and
   Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and
   Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made
   the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and
   increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those
   marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was
   the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the
   library collected by George III. was presented to the nation
   by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to
   receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then
   decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole
   of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired
   library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the
   Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present
   structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was
   then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides
   of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole
   of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the
   increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make
   various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke,
   some of them even before it had been carried out."

      _J. W. Jones,
      British Museum: a Guide,
      pages ii-iii._

   "The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to
   the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too
   expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been
   fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately
   … after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been
   suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for
   building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out
   under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The
   quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet
   in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square
   feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258
   feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of
   from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light
   and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered
   with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded
   against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in
   diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern
   is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty
   circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,
   inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35
   feet from the ground.
{2016}
   In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all
   others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is
   about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa
   Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of
   Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,
   at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.
   The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,
   and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24
   feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs
   round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;
   the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the
   Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this
   level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.
   … The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable
   accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:
   eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight
   on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen
   readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and
   accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and
   one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the
   exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,
   and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with
   rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have
   occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each
   person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4
   feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is
   screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal
   division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on
   sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the
   space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is
   fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each
   table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are
   contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the
   longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of
   the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the
   tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A
   tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,
   which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,
   and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the
   tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,
   which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the
   Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in
   radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a
   shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room
   contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will
   accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."

      _List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the
      British Museum; preface._

   The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum
   in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of
   manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.

      _Minerva, 1893-94._

   A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the
   extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the
   Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894.
   With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum
   will be fourteen acres.

LIBRARIES:
   England: The Bodleian Library.

   "Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who
   had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a
   diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the
   University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton
   College. He found the ancient library of the University
   (which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small
   beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of
   264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly
   destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built
   for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library')
   swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to
   refound the library of the University was actively carried
   out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally
   opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two
   striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from
   the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at
   court and with friends to induce them to give help to his
   scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money
   and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by
   the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in
   1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they
   should present his foundation with a copy of every printed
   book published by a member of the Company; and from that time
   to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has
   been continuously enjoyed."

      _F. Madan,
      Books in Manuscript,
      page 84._

   In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000
   printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act
   of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library,
   Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates
   Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin,
   are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the
   United Kingdom.

LIBRARIES:
   England: Rise and Growth of Free Town-Libraries.

   In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the
   article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by
   Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still
   'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once
   entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free
   library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy
   Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty
   souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had
   established a free library, for all comers, in connection with
   a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old
   Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the
   Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when
   in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of
   the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the
   antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter
   antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,
   the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of
   William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese
   Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record
   local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy
   of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy
   and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …
{2017}
   It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in
   visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,
   examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in
   priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the
   chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of
   confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and
   eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to
   be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and
   benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,
   Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in
   the college, and take charge of a certain library newly
   erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day
   from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be
   freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to
   read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate
   obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those
   desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or
   accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three
   catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean
   of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now
   Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,
   and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are
   all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by
   fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken
   'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the
   church being at the same time burnt down."

      _J. Taylor,
      The First English Free Library and its Founders
      (Murray's Magazine, November, 1891)._

   "Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and
   yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally
   supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and
   one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of
   individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given
   very many of the continental towns freely accessible
   libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the
   history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to
   believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common
   library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each
   town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless
   guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be
   diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of
   a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert
   Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or
   place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some
   few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some
   valuable books in various departments of literature for free
   access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of
   our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention
   of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the
   country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of
   statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions
   in different States, he communicated the result of his
   researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was
   read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this
   'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some
   unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision
   of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy
   position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards
   could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000
   volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41,
   Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the
   population of cities containing libraries, was in Great
   Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British
   libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful
   claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was
   absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality.
   That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by
   Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society
   twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great
   and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present
   system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it
   is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on
   every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late
   William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the
   appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of
   public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way
   for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."

      _W. E. A. Axon,
      Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great
      Britain and the Continent
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      September 1870, volume 33)._

   The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act
   of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years
   from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had
   availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a
   very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to
   four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which
   has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890,
   and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken
   advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less
   than four places in the year, we have an average of more than
   17 places."

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St.
      Martin's-in-the-Fields._

   "The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the
   enormous strides London has made within the last five years in
   the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had
   adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted
   them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened
   throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000
   volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."

      _The Library Journal,
      February, 1892._

   Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local
   authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the
   County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries
   without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."

      _The Library Journal,
      October, 1893 (volume 18, page 442)._

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Franklin and the first Subscription Library.

   When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first
   formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in
   that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble
   pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the
   leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their
   own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often
   happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto,
   for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and
   this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep
   their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while
   debating as for the use of members during the week. The
   suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment
   was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the
   common benefit a year.
{2018}
   But some books having been injured, their owners became
   dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were
   then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still
   common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed
   insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published
   at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five
   guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the
   advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea
   of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan,
   the substance of which was, that each subscriber should
   contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of
   books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the
   library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money
   to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very
   great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of
   subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of
   sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who
   had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they
   thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more
   smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and
   from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it
   was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the
   project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not
   till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After
   consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these
   parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon
   London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were
   placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to
   England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to
   it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's
   Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson
   continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the
   annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those
   days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed.
   All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the
   coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest.
   … In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first,
   in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the
   library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The
   second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many
   years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by
   whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were
   greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the
   arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he
   was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two
   years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few
   mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word.
   Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were
   frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but
   steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up
   all over the country, and many were started even in
   Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that
   then the parent library had given rise to 'many little
   libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that
   non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the
   library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and
   paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence,
   and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says,
   'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay
   here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring
   any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to
   nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be
   worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes
   was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution
   is one of the few in America that has held on its way,
   unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a
   quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully
   administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is
   every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to
   come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to
   the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied
   in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted,
   and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to
   account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited
   Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when
   the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful
   address, and received, in return, a gift of books and
   apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the
   colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's
   original' conception. They were among the chief means of
   educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became
   fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public
   amusements to divert their attention from study, became better
   acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by
   strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than
   people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' …
   What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the
   libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily
   student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every
   day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most
   valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin
   was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea
   of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I
   cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of
   either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."

      _J. Parton,
      Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin,
      pages 200-203._

   "The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,
   whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some
   fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and
   of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the
   State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the
   Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed
   several other associations and sustained a removal to
   Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a
   hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at
   last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth
   and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last
   few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into
   its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the
   Revolution and the war of words which attended our political
   birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after
   removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received
   the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James
   Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most
   important collection of books.
{2019}
   Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first
   classic published in America, besides being versed in natural
   science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one
   hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their
   versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the
   Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most
   valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern
   mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public
   library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia
   Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,
   barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should
   always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct
   descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example
   in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869
   died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well
   known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as
   husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the
   salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars
   were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated
   and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the
   Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was
   offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was
   accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about
   one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric
   order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire
   square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred
   thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at
   present has, and to this building the more valuable books of
   the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern
   works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old
   edifice, and nearer the center of the city."

      _B. Samuel,
      The Father of American Libraries
      (Century Magazine, May, 1883)._

   In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company
   contained 171,069 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   The First Library in New York.

   The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the
   kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr.
   Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will,
   bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of
   the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of
   Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city,
   for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the
   neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's
   History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry
   about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in
   a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in
   purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every
   subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the
   annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these
   books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for
   non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this
   library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by
   the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are
   restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental
   subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in
   process of time, will probably become vastly rich and
   voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to
   have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The
   library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have
   been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees
   of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it,
   and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall.
   This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the
   Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The
   City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a
   long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the
   library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was
   granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the
   revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered
   with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the
   possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public
   institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library
   nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of
   which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the
   history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes,
   that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed
   the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the
   choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April,
   1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting
   was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its
   privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the
   surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an
   accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society,
   undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new
   collection."

      _Catalogue of the New York Society Library:
      Historical Notice._

LIBRARIES:
   Redwood Library.

   While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near
   Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a
   philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were
   Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter
   Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the
   Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …
   The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its
   objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the
   Redwood Library."

      _A. C. Fraser,
      Life and Letters of George Berkeley
      (volume 4 of Works), page 169._

   The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood,
   who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained
   in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a
   building for the library erected in 1750.

   _United States of America: Free Public Libraries._

   "Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public
   Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of
   the United States, have already anticipated us in the
   formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free
   public library, however, was then in operation, in the United
   States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The
   movements in the same direction in England and the United
   States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and
   in the public debates and private correspondence relating to
   the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or
   scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was
   being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,
   Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition
   be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a
   tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free
   to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,
   1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to
   all the cities and towns in the State.
{2020}
   In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public
   Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it
   the donation of his very complete collection of United States
   documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,
   the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,
   was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first
   donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was
   fortunate that the public-library system started where it did
   and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted
   the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.
   George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious
   policy of that library—a policy which has never been
   improved, and which has been adopted by all the public
   libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the
   free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.
   Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to
   the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,
   and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its
   administration. Before he had any official relations with it,
   he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own
   mind, the leading principles on which the library should be
   conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on
   such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,
   libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar
   legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation
   in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed
   the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public
   Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State
   soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be
   raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,
   anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a
   general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;
   Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;
   Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode
   Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in
   1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The
   public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since
   enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and
   complete than the library laws of any of the New England
   States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of
   Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned
   after that of Illinois."

      _W. F. Poole,
      President's Address at the annual meeting of
      the American Library Association, 1887._

   The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under
   which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly
   begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire
   in 1891.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Library Statistics of 1891.

   "As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but
   little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public
   Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850,
   gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and
   containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of
   1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and
   the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and
   Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of
   volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary
   of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being
   only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being
   2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr.
   William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which
   was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of
   all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the
   number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics
   it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving
   about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in
   them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the
   different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted
   as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to
   1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred
   libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there
   were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United
   States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting
   material for the special report of the Bureau upon public
   libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of
   3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of
   volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly
   complete collection of library statistics. In the report of
   the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and
   using the former work as a basis, another list of public
   libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over
   300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or
   almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these
   libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about
   66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in
   the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number
   of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller
   libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these
   smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the
   books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the
   extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for
   1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of
   libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools,
   which were included in the statistics of those institutions.
   From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records
   given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to
   restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be
   fairly called representative, and as those having less than
   1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of
   the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over
   was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries
   of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing
   14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by
   classes as far as it could be done. … The number of
   libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes
   in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending
   libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference
   libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school
   libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending
   libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs,
   associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription
   corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating
   libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now]
   given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of
   1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report
   of 1885. …
{2021}
   There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over
   500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between
   100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128
   between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565
   between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000.
   … The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or
   50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or
   8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the
   North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198,
   or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the
   libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34
   per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent;
   the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North
   Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western,
   1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the
   increase in the United States in the number of libraries was
   from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in
   the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370,
   or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an
   increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201
   to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North
   Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per
   cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57,
   or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the
   largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western
   Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase
   was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase
   in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of
   over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double
   the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In
   the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822
   of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every
   16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or
   12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was
   from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South
   Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in
   the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per
   cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or
   18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or
   1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North
   Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a
   library and the least change in the number, except the Western
   Division, where the increase of population from immigration
   has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries.
   But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of
   libraries have been very large in nearly every section. …
   This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the
   libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the
   population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase
   of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division
   the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34
   per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of
   14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an
   increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from
   20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the
   Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent.
   These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase
   of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over
   11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an
   average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the
   increase of the number of books in the libraries of the
   country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the
   population during the past six years."

      _W. Flint,
      Statistics of Public Libraries
      (United States Bureau of Education,
      Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893)._

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Massachusetts Free Libraries.

   "In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of
   Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain
   authentic information relative to the libraries in the State,
   that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing
   in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which
   all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the
   aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all
   kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little
   more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of
   the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a
   half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities
   having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248
   of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the
   people have rights or free privileges. There are about
   2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of
   2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State
   contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of
   individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for
   libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half
   million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with
   an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the
   benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost
   without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and
   67 of them show a decline in population in the past five
   years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the
   formation of free public libraries in such towns."

      _First Report of the Free Public Library
      Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref._

   The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an
   addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public
   libraries.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   The American Library Association.

   A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and
   in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the
   English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting
   of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the
   Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first
   fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent
   American Library Association, which has held annual meetings
   since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country
   together every year, making common property of their
   experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with
   a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings
   of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the
   Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first
   number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the
   sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who
   planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal
   became the organ of the American Library Association, and each
   was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined
   influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work
   of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase
   their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized
   profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.
{2022}
   The general result among the libraries of the country has been
   an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this
   renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but
   its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of
   the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of
   Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the
   late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry
   Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.
   Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late
   Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"
   and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was
   happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address
   delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,
   Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works
   entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,
   "the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a
   watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the
   books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn
   by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,
   have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit
   of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of
   such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has
   also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a
   science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a
   clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject
   catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and
   trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the
   results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for
   what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be
   any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such
   a short cut to information that will make learning more easily
   accessible."

   The organization of the American Library Association led to
   the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the
   United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an
   international conference of Librarians held in London.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Principal Libraries.

   The following are the libraries in the United States which
   exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the
   "Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of
   Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of
   its foundation:

   1638. Harvard University Library,
         292,000 volumes; 278,097 pamphlets.

   1701. Yale College Library, New Haven,
         185,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

   1731. Philadelphia Library Company,
         165,487 volumes; 30,000 pamphlets.

   1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
         100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

   1754. Columbia College Library, New York,
         135,000 volumes.

   1789. Library of the House of Representatives, Washington,
         125,000 volumes.

   1800. Library of Congress, Washington,
         659,843 volumes; 210,000 pamphlets.

   1807. Boston Athenæum,
         173,831 volumes; 70,000 pamphlets.

   1818. New York State Library, Albany,
         157,114 volumes.

   1820. New York Mercantile Library, New York,
         239,793 volumes.

   1821. Philadelphia Mercantile Library,
         166,000 volumes; 10,000 pamphlets.

   1826. Maryland State Library, Annapolis,
         100,000 volumes.

   1849. Astor Library, New York,
         238,946 volumes; 12,000 pamphlets.

   1852. Boston Public Library,
         556,283 volumes.

   1857. Brooklyn Library,
         113,251 volumes; 21,500 pamphlets.

   1857. Peabody Institute, Baltimore,
         110,000 volumes; 13,500 pamphlets.

   1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,
         104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.

   1865. Detroit Public Library,
         108,720 volumes.

   1867. Cincinnati Public Library,
         156,673 volumes; 18,326 pamphlets.

   1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,
         111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.

   1872. Chicago Public Library,
         175,874 volumes; 25,293 pamphlets.

   1882. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,
         106,663 volumes; 1,500 pamphlets.

   1890. University of Chicago Library,
         280,000 volumes.

   1891. Sutro Library, San Francisco,
         200,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Library Gifts.

   A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United
   States are the creations of private wealth, munificently
   employed for the common good. The greater institutions which
   have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by
   John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox
   Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody
   Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch
   Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman
   whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded
   by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro
   Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the
   Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and
   Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who
   died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an
   estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the
   endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of
   the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New
   York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the
   endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been
   partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling
   of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose
   for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent.
   Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in
   progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including
   libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin
   to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of
   wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued
   in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts
   which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise
   founded are beyond computation.

{2023}

LIBRARIES:
   United States of America:
   Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.

   A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the
   departments and bureaus of the national Government, has
   occurred within a few years past. The more important among
   them are the following:

   Department of Agriculture,
   20,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets;

   Department of Justice, 21,500 volumes;

   Department of State, 50,000 volumes;

   Department of the Interior, 11,500;

   Navy Department, 24,518;

   Post Office Department, 10,000;

   Patent Office Scientific Library,
   50,000 volumes and 10,000 pamphlets;

   Signal Office, 10,540 volumes;

   Surgeon General's Office,
   104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best
   collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best
   catalogued medical library, in the world);

   Treasury Department, 21,000 volumes;

   Bureau of Education,
   45,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets;

   Coast and Geodetic Survey,
   12,000 volumes and 4,000 pamphlets;

   Geological Survey,
   30,414 volumes, and 42,917 pamphlets;

   Naval Observatory,
   13,000 volumes and 3,000 pamphlets;

   United States Senate, 72,592 volumes;

   United States House of Representatives,
   125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library
   of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);

   War Department, 30,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:
   Canada.

   "In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of
   the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a
   subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an
   active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the
   subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was
   entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an
   interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him,
   describing the literary wants of the town and the class of
   books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for
   their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as
   late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the
   only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly
   increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list
   of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased
   to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion
   of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was
   then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library,
   consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions,
   to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of
   $500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the
   provinces, libraries were established in connection with the
   Parliaments. We have therefore the following:

   Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;
   New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;
   Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;
   Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;
   Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;
   Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;
   Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;
   British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;
   Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.
   Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.

   By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the
   Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding
   with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of
   income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten
   years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established
   on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in
   1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government
   from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to
   Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada
   are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an
   average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec,
   is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the
   continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848
   the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from
   1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions
   for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening
   a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed
   the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry
   out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department
   authorized each county council to establish four classes of
   libraries—

   1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for
   the use of the children and rate-payers.

   2. A general public lending library available to all the
   ratepayers in the municipality.

   3. A professional library of books on teaching, school
   organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for
   teachers only.

   4. A library in any public institution under the control of
   the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county
   jail, for the use of the prisoners. …

   The proposal to establish the second class was however
   premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes
   were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the
   Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a
   small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the
   members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased
   to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in
   1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by
   these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the
   cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited
   number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task
   assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act
   was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the
   United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of
   taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. …
   None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this
   matter."

      _J. Bain,
      Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada
      (Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887)._

   "The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds
   containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number
   the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths
   of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining
   fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each.
   The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries
   reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has
   863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of
   Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250
   volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a
   little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per
   cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per
   cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per
   cent of the total number."

      _V. Flint,
      Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries
      in the United States and Canada
      (United States Bureau of Education, Circular
      of Information No.7, 1893)._

LIBRARIES:
   Mexico.

   The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides
   manuscripts and pamphlets.

{2024}

LIBRARIES:
   China.
   The Imperial Library.

   "It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have
   the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an
   early date found the necessity of those great collections of
   books which are the means for carrying on the great work of
   civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal
   catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the
   famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated.
   Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms,
   and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was
   unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books
   destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and
   the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the
   makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his
   name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When
   the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed
   more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious
   edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover
   such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some
   classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of
   scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke
   open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and
   found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen
   [bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of
   Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take
   their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was
   placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to
   have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a
   descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict
   against books. Towards the close of the first century a
   library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. …
   Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and
   under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore
   the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second
   century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part
   of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at
   Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311.
   In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made
   a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue
   was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and
   Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national
   literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of
   the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the
   destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the
   next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the
   Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the
   exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor
   Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books,
   to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was
   threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei
   dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the
   efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The
   later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the
   overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of
   5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the
   close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the
   empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty
   are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature.
   Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915
   books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469
   books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth
   century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and
   voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of
   literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an
   edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons.
   The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the
   benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was
   pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature
   and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed
   books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to
   300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The
   great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last
   century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the
   literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service
   of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many
   of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is
   only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four
   copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan
   Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung
   Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a
   third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the
   fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of
   Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears
   that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand
   distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in
   effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes
   the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed
   essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited
   the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for
   a public library, and that those who applied for permission to
   the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were
   afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from
   some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.'
   Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and
   District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town
   will contain the standard classical and historical books. At
   Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but
   their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are
   collections of books and sometimes printing presses in
   connection with the Buddhist monasteries."

      _W. E. A. Axon,
      Notes on Chinese Libraries
      (Library Journal, January and February, 1880)._

   For an account of the ancient library of Chinese classics in
   stone,

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: CHINA.

{2025}

LIBRARIES:
   Japan.

   "The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the
   Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum
   of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by
   the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book,
   pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was
   established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about
   70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library
   belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was
   placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new
   library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the
   Education Department at the same time with about 28,000
   volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its
   career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books
   increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time,
   both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily
   increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350
   and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The
   library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of
   too many readers of the commonest text-books and light
   literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the
   serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied
   by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much
   restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very
   clear from the character of the library that it is a reference
   library and not a circulating library. But as there are not
   any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system
   of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche
   Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5)
   per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese
   and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about
   100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not
   used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. …
   The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my
   charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial
   University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the
   instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted
   to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European
   books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other
   smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten
   private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books
   contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and
   4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in
   most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or
   three small private circulating libraries, which contain books
   chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works
   popularly treated."

      _I. Tanaka,
      Tokyo Library
      (San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891)._

LIBRARIES:
   India.

   The first free library in a native state of India was opened
   in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was
   founded by the brother of the Maharajah.

      _Library Journal,
      volume 17, page 395._

   ----------LIBRARIES: End----------

LIBURNIANS, The.

      See KORKYRA.

LIBYAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

LIBYANS, The.

   "The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that
   small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was
   called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern
   coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the
   Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians
   and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not
   applied until a later date, as this name was originally
   confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had
   settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut
   descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over
   the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the
   Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to
   the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient
   Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that
   of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh,
   or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of
   Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and
   Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the
   same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure,
   still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different
   parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors.
   The language they still speak, known through the labours of
   learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly
   related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few
   inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya,
   Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The
   alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the
   Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who
   was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems
   more accurate than any other classical writer on African
   history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive
   period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the
   settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races,
   unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with
   throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the
   Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites,
   descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on
   the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still
   in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes,
   originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was
   afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper
   Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions,
   of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The
   Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the
   arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the
   Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was
   contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      See, also, NUMIDIANS; and AMORITES.

LICINIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 376-367.

LICINIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 307-323.

LICTORS.
FASCES.

   "The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood,
   tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most
   likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the
   executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were
   carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in
   front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and
   compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere),
   barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the
   Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the
   lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to
   twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls.
   … The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. …
   Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were
   entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his
   inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the
   latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107, foot-note._

{2026}

LIDUS,
LEUD,
LATT, The.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

   ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

LIÈGE:
   The Episcopal Principality.

   "Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German
   speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical
   principality, whose territory extended some distance up the
   river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the
   Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of
   St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The
   Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his
   subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural
   protectors. It was in France that they found a market for
   their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb
   of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert.
   Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them
   from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the
   10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people
   of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue
   the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population
   of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to
   the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a
   burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns.
   Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a
   majority of the votes of the whole male population.
   Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop;
   but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending
   their administration he could paralyse the social life of the
   State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life.
   Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with
   their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was
   established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the
   latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly
   flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great
   slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at
   25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000
   crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the
   Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor
   of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of
   eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.

      _P. F. Willert,
      Reign of Lewis XI.,
      pages 93-94._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Kirk,
      History of Charles the Bold,
      book 1, chapter 7._

LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468.
   War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy
   and destruction of the city.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468;
      also, DINANT.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1691.
   Bombardment by the French.

   The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of
   Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the
   Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May,
   1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at
   a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and
   the force which made it withdrew speedily.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

LIÈGE: A. D. 1702.
   Reduced by Marlborough.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1792-1793.
   Occupation and surrender by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

   ----------LIÈGE: Start--------

   ----------LIEGNITZ: Start----------

LIEGNITZ, The Battle of (1241).

   On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already
   overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces
   of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all
   Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or
   Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site
   being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e.,
   "Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear
   from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the
   number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with
   these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 144._

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

LIEGNITZ:
   Battle of (1760).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

   ----------LIEGNITZ: End----------

LIGERIS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Loire.

LIGHT BRIGADE, The Charge of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

LIGII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

LIGNY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

LIGONIA.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

LIGURIAN REPUBLIC, The.

   The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the
   Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by
   Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER), and 1804-1805.

LIGURIANS, The.

   "The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by
   the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded
   by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward
   their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the
   decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what
   had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of
   Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians
   were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were
   parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the
   borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone,
   the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far
   more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the
   Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and
   that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts,
   long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore
   of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down
   to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in
   the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name
   Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations
   we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians
   nor Celts."

      _G. B. Niebuhr,
      History of Rome,
      volume 1._

   "On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of
   Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times,
   we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these
   Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread
   through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to
   have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and
   southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Taylor,
      Origin of the Aryans,
      chapter 2, section 7._

      See, also, APPENDIX A, VOLUME 1.

{2027}

   ----------LILLE: Start--------

LILLE: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
      LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

LILLE: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

LILLE: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

LILLE: A. D. 1708.
   Siege and capture by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

LILLE: A. D. 1713.
   Restoration to France.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------LILLE: End--------

LILLEBONNE, Assembly of.

   A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,
   A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion
   of England.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 13, section 3 (volume 3)._

LILLIBULLERO.

   "Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented
   Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a
   libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior
   to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English
   throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel
   [Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in
   Ireland.]

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

   In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother
   Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of
   Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were
   in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry,
   had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used
   as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses
   and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of
   England to the other all classes were constantly singing this
   idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army.
   More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer
   delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at
   the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good
   old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton
   afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three
   kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the
   effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public
   feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of
   Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the
   first part will be found, but not the second part, which was
   added after William's landing."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 9, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Wilkins,
      Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
      volume 1, page 275._

LILY OF FLORENCE, The.

      See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

   ----------LILYBÆUM: Start--------

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 368.
   Siege by Dionisius.

   "This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to
   have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye
   (of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius
   in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian
   station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by
   the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to
   reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the
   Carthaginians.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 277.
   Siege by Pyrrhus.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 250-241.
   Siege by the Romans.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

   ----------LILYBÆUM: End--------

LIMA:
   Founded by Pizarro (1535).

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

LIMBURG:
   Capture by the Dutch (1632).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

   ----------LIMERICK: Start--------

LIMERICK: A. D. 1690-1691.
   Sieges and surrender.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

LIMERICK: A. D. 1691.
   The treaty of surrender and its violation.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1691.

   ----------LIMERICK: End--------

LIMES, The.

   This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes
   is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked
   out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being
   patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence,
   such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is
   thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation
   of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was
   allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of
   the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was
   doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the
   line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a
   boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on
   both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the
   Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4, foot-note._

LIMIGANTES, The.

   The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century,
   a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who
   were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian
   people in the same territory and to have overpowered and
   expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became
   dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a
   war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly
   humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to
   surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They
   resisted the mandate and were exterminated.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18-19._

   The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a
   nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in
   earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.

LIMISSO.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

   ----------LIMOGES: Start--------

LIMOGES,
   Origin of the town.

      See LEMOVICES.

LIMOGES, A. D. 1370.
   Massacre by the Black Prince.

   A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince."
   Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A.
   D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population,
   and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while
   the town was pillaged and burned.

      _Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 288, 290._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

   ----------LIMOGES: End--------

LIMONUM.

      See POITIERS.

LIMOUSIN,
   Early inhabitants of the.

      See LEMOVICES.

{2028}

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Election to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Inauguration and Presidential administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1865 (APRIL).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Gettysburg address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Reëlection to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Visit to Richmond.

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

LINCOLN, Abraham.
   Assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

LINCOLN, General Benjamin,
   in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
      1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);
      1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

LINCOLN, Battle of.

      See LAMBETH, TREATY OF.

LINCOLN, Origin of.

      See LINDUM.

LINDISWARA,
LINDESFARAS.

   "Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time
   to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

LINDSEY, Kingdom of.

   One of the small and transient kingdoms of the Angles in early
   England.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1)._

LINDUM.

   The Roman city from which sprang the English city of Lincoln.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

LINGONES, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the
   modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the
   Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 390-347.

LINKÖPING, Battle of (1598).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

LION AND THE SUN, The Order of the.

   A Persian order, instituted in 1808.

LION OF ST. MARK, The Winged.

   The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed
   or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the
   lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two
   granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the
   Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta
   of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in
   bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St.
   Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."

      _The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, Oct., 1874),
      page 423._

      See, also, VENICE: A. D. 829.

LIPAN, Battle of (1434).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

   ----------LISBON: Start--------

LISBON:
   Origin and early history.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

LISBON: A. D. 1147.
   Capture from the Moors.
   Made the capital of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LISBON: A. D. 1755.
   The great Earthquake.

   "On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the
   same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading
   earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary.
   In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that
   region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations
   were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock
   was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings,
   perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great
   numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people
   were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful
   destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year
   1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake.
   The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of
   great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches
   of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex,
   all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent
   shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the
   intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent
   ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering
   spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of
   people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously
   maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering
   agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric,
   the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin.
   About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses
   in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce
   afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an
   eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their
   children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled
   away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and
   distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an
   animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid
   dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed
   for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted
   out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream
   turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in
   the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living
   creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is
   said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the
   banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless
   affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like
   a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least
   fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again
   subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within
   its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently
   whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as
   scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a
   person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for
   in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three
   different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the
   kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also
   the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread
   in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there
   remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and
   wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in
   the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after
   being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or
   food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the
   time as not less than 30,000."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 32 (volume 4)._

LISBON: A. D. 1807.
   Occupied by the French.
   Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

   ----------LISBON: End--------
{2029}

LISLE.

      See LILLE.

LISSA, Battle of (1866).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

LIT DE JUSTICE.

      See BED OF JUSTICE.

   ----------LITHUANIA: Start--------

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
   Formation of the Grand Duchy.

   "From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest]
   to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history,
   during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The
   hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians,
   formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed
   organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian
   tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those
   territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which
   the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left
   without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235)
   a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of
   this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at
   a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the
   Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and
   the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its
   subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent
   of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."

      _Poland: Her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855),
      page 119._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1386. Union with Poland under the Jagellon
kings.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

   ----------LITHUANIA: End--------

LITHUANIANS.
LETTS.

   "They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian
   family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are
   allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the
   Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt,
   though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker
   than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred
   language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the
   Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest
   to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even
   those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure
   and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk,
   Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult
   problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian
   populations is second only in importance to that of the
   Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here
   it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the
   province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have
   encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It
   is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the
   Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is
   the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian
   empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as
   the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.
   Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian
   provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still
   survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the
   encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the
   ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."

      _R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 6._

LITTLE BIG HORN, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

LITTLE BRETHREN.

      See BEGUINES, &c.

LITTLE ROCK, Federal occupation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

LITTLE RUSSIA.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT.

LITTLE YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

LITURGIES.

   "It was not only by taxation of its members that the
   [Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many
   other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and
   which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet
   nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called
   Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the
   people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'—
   such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace,
   according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation
   to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly
   extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class
   the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the
   furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals.
   … A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the
   Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with
   gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was
   compelled to have all who wished to come forward as
   competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with
   board during the time of training, and at the games themselves
   to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place
   of contest. … More important and more costly than all these
   ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy
   of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."

      _G. F. Schumann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

   "The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to
   the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in
   the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or
   oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished
   by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the
   corresponding services and contributions of the present day.
   They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in
   the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state
   needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or
   undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are
   principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting
   of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the
   only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind
   of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was
   a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for
   the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art
   consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest,
   and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since
   the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the
   place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games
   of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of
   light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes
   were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the
   tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were
   defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the
   great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid
   from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely
   entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of the Athenians
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,
      Athens,
      book 5, chapter 2._

{2030}

LITUS, The.

   In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as
   representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt
   identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating
   the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the
   litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master
   and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild
   set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY, The.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

LIVERPOOL MINISTRY, The,

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LIVERY, Origin of the term.

   "After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great
   solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court
   certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter
   immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In
   the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were
   called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because
   the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      book 13._

LIVERY COMPANIES.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

LIVERY OF SEIZIN.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

LIVINGSTON MANOR, The.

   Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch
   clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from
   the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was
   about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson
   had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were
   ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership.
   Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him
   exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best
   lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont
   [then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has
   on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or
   five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are
   his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War],
   Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He
   erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In
   1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory
   patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate.
   "Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey
   computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It
   was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip,
   the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or
   limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending
   his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded
   him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into
   possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern
   neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by
   her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern
   boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make
   settlements within the province of New York. Now as her
   population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually
   encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In
   April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered
   complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long
   correspondence between the governors of the two provinces
   followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a
   number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in
   which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary
   between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and
   the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was
   approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. …
   Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors
   of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few
   unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of
   independence. During the war that followed, and for some years
   after its close, their title and possession of their broad
   acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to
   dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were
   abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited
   and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition,
   numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the
   Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was
   referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the
   House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to
   break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet
   continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was
   formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including
   those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State,
   termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a
   military organization. It was their purpose to resist the
   payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the
   Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the
   projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. …
   Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as
   Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters
   carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes
   for the party which would give them the most favorable
   legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set
   aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the
   tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The
   petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the
   Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman.
   Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a
   favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and
   thorough investigation of the title … the committee
   unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This
   put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war,
   although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated
   cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885]
   continued. The landlords, however, particularly the
   Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures
   of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they
   occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old
   manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's
   descendants."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      volume I, pages 243-285._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. P. Cheyney,
      Anti-Rent Agitations in New York
      (University of Pennsylvania Pubs.)._

{2031}

LIVONIA: 12th-13th Centuries.
   First introduction of Commerce and Christianity.

   "Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly
   unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then
   visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast.
   These commercial relations with their western neighbours first
   opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the
   year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to
   the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard."
   Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was
   succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being
   driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in
   1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had
   commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning
   of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the
   Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and
   other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to
   the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves
   Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's
   successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the
   town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the
   concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the
   Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under
   the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this
   order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently,
   to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and
   to fight against the heathen. In return for these services
   they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest
   with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von
   Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations.
   Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the
   arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring
   countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted
   districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of
   Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united
   with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies
   from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the
   Baltic.

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      See, also
      PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

LLANOS.

      See PAMPAS.

LLORENS, Battle of (1645).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LOANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LOBBY, The.

   "'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not
   being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its
   members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term
   includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber,
   and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are
   called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular
   occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation,
   any particular measure in which they happen to be interested.
   The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper
   motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham
   calls a dyslogistic sense."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16._

LOBOSITZ, OR LOWOSITZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOCH LEVEN, Mary Stuart's captivity at.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LOCHLANN.

   The Celtic name for Norway, meaning Lakeland.

LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

LOCOFOCOS.

   "In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the
   democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party.
   At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the
   proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by
   presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by
   the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and,
   in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished
   the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the
   room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had
   provided themselves. From this they received the name of
   locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the
   whole democratic party by the opposition."

      _W. R. Houghton,
      History of American Politics,
      page 219._

LOCRI.

   The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek
   settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as
   early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,
   married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of
   which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his
   son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to
   Locri when first driven from Syracuse.

LOCRIANS, The.

      See LOKRIANS.

LODGER FRANCHISE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

LODI, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LODI, Treaty of (1454).

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

LOEN, OR STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

LŒTIC COLONIES.

   During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the
   Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the
   service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts
   of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called
   Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the
   German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the
   people or men of the empire."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 9, foot-note._

LOG, The.

      See EPHAH.

LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.

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

LOGAN CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

LOGAN'S WRONGS.
LOGAN'S WAR.
LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LÖGBERG, The.

      See THING.

LOGI, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

LOGISTÆ AND EUTHYNI, The.

   "In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the
   generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both
   authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid,
   existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows
   that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were
   in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the
   principal persons in the auditing board."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 8._

{2032}

LOGOGRAPHI, The.

   The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention
   to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single
   families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic
   'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy
   narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and
   obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the
   myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and
   social condition of different countries."

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

LOGOTHETES.

   A class of officers created under Justinian for the
   administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its
   conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with
   those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 15 (volume 4)._

LOGSTOWN.

   About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an
   important Indian village a little below the site of the
   present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson,
   a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed
   tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was
   generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the
   Iroquois confederacy."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

LOIDIS.

      See ELMET.

LOJA: Sieges and capture by the Spaniards (1482-1483).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LOJERA, Battle of (1353).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

LOKRIANS, The.

   "The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the
   western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as
   far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the
   Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was
   conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow
   strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also
   touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and
   divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount
   Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or
   Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the
   Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and
   said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed
   Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along
   the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided
   itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The
   whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its
   beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

LOLLARDS. The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
      and BEGUINES.—BEGHARDS.

LOLLARDS' TOWER.

   When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,
   began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon
   crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of
   building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the
   custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is
   still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the
   captives were chained.

LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.
   Early history.

   "The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their
   numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,
   they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their
   martial enterprise."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford translation,
      chapter 40._

   "In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side
   the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and
   driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of
   the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the
   Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in
   Italy."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford translation,
      Translator's note._

   The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or
   Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their
   beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall
   of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant
   "long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive
   the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the
   Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain
   by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is
   still called the lange Börde. According to this view,
   Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the
   river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur
   in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood
   of the Elbe."

      _Dr. W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 42._

   From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.
   "Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken
   a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the
   great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains
   of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty
   years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which
   both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and
   both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to
   their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by
   a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The
   Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the
   pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the
   prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the
   name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of
   Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his
   beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his
   sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a
   foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now
   experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      Fall of Rome,
      lecture 6._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.
   Conquests and settlement in Italy.

   When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the
   Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the
   bargain between them that the former should surrender to the
   Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,
   Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their
   own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious
   Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of
   Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.
   Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the
   sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies
   of the Roman-Greeks.
{2033}
   The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving
   wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had
   been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible
   that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an
   entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year
   568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut
   himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other
   resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings
   of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of
   four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,
   opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The
   Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they
   advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the
   fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being
   relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge
   in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.
   … The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from
   Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took
   up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the
   fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from
   Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and
   Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,
   Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south
   of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of
   fugitives."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

   "From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the
   inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,
   the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had
   been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a
   new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying
   detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above
   three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …
   The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath
   that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a
   general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to
   execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his
   horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.
   One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to
   interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the
   conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the
   situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the
   difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards
   disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some
   ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 45._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.
   Their kingdom.

   Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian
   kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of
   his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him
   had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a
   chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned
   but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a
   distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,
   the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and
   was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new
   king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive
   invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was
   led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race
   who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years
   Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
   Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the
   royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended
   to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines
   of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and
   Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now
   represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,
   Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,
   Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large
   portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the
   Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,
   survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the
   Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years
   over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 45._

LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
   The Fall of their monarchy.
   Charlemagne's conquest.

   Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous
   career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the
   last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from
   Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of
   the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which
   depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination
   to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its
   independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a
   republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual
   prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and
   the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,
   being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the
   court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin
   was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope
   had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he
   responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign
   beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a
   promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope
   and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon
   as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf
   was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On
   this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled
   the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional
   territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom
   and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages
   to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This
   chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the
   Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank
   monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin
   was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had
   quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He
   passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia
   after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the
   kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the
   remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the
   territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and
   added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the
   Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,
   was forever extinguished.
{2034}
   Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several
   smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,
   perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were
   advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the
   disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the
   forms of government which had been previously established. He
   introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The
   native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the
   national law was preserved, and the distributions of land
   maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as
   their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name
   of King of Lombardy."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      _J. I. Mombert,
      Charlemagne,
      book 1, chapter 2,
      and book 2, chapter 2._

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 4-5._

      See, also,
      PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

   ----------LOMBARDY: Start--------

LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.
   Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.
   The subjection to Germany.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.
   The rise of the Republican cities.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.
   The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.
   The League of Lombardy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
      MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.
   The conflict with Frederick II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.
   The Age of the Despots.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.
   Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the
   dissolution of their threatening tyranny.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.
   Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.
   His coronation with the Iron Crown.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.
   Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.
   The Free Companies and the wars with Florence
   and with the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.
   Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.
   The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and
   Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.
   The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition
   by the Spanish crown.

      See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.
   Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.
   Occupied by the Spaniards and French
   and recovered by the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Conquest by Bonaparte.
   Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.
   French evacuation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.
   The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.
   French evacuation.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Austria.
   Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
      ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule
   and its failure.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.
   Emancipation from the Austrians.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------LOMBARDY: End----------

LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.

   The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,
   believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the
   Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 2._

LONATO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LONDINIUM.
   The Roman name of the city of London.

      See LONDON.

   ----------LONDON: Start----------

LONDON:
   The origin of the city and its name.

   "When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the
   Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of
   Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his
   soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,
   he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I
   believe the place was London. The name of London refers
   directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a
   philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman
   general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the
   conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with
   all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the
   year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,
   I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The
   notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town
   preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is
   inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this
   part of Britain."

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticæ,
      volume 2, part 2, chapter 13._

   "Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of
   British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the
   loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any
   settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a
   vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the
   town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the
   Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading
   intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at
   large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the
   landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of
   43] London had risen into a flourishing port."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 3._

{2035}

   "The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn-din,' the lake fort,
   seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The
   Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a
   word which must have sounded to his ears very much like
   'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was
   turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is
   the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called
   his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that
   remains of him or it. … London was in those days
   emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a
   broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the
   great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls
   it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very
   like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising
   out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 1, and foot-note._

LONDON: A. D. 61.
   Destruction by the Iceni.

   Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by
   the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which
   they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.
   It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at
   this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:
   but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was
   of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly
   determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to
   the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the
   attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great
   cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman
   colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a
   moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman
   civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the
   workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the
   Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double
   Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken
   rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible
   Boadicea."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

LONDON: 4th Century.
   The Roman Augusta and its walls.

   "It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]
   himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer
   wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which
   still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in
   the history of London not second in importance even to its
   foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête
   du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial
   Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be
   assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:
   and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in
   an immense tract of what was until then open country,
   especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and
   Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the
   new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never
   without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the
   increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.
   The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very
   clear. The population to be protected might very well have
   been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed
   a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles
   and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from
   Blackfriars to the Tower."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.
   380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls
   it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we
   learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the
   inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head
   quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the
   reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by
   the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.
   Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and
   cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way
   of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years
   previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan
   for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is
   on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as
   an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous
   chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it
   is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as
   applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must
   probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in
   relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from
   Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a
   mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London
   Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those
   of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of
   the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the
   island."

      _Charles Roach Smith,
      Illustrations of Roman London,
      pages 11-12._

LONDON: 4th Century.
   The growth of the Roman city.

   "That London gradually increased in importance beyond the
   dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it
   in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads
   beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times
   of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or
   'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities
   of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was
   considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,
   appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The
   walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on
   the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,
   and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended
   across the river on the Kentish side."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 15._

   "Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides
   of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,
   which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …
   Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the
   mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern
   parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge
   by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent
   mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had
   brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other
   side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon
   ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings
   of Roman streets."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Roach Smith,
      Antiquities of Roman London._

{2036}

LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.
   During the Saxon conquest and settlement.

   For nearly half a century after its conquest by the
   East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the
   6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We
   know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate
   of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within
   its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least
   as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from
   the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls
   [see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the
   settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here
   as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had
   been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the
   East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal
   life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a
   century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of
   Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,
   remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the
   first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the
   midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine
   how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman
   towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.
   But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the
   stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier
   topographical history. The story of early London is not that
   of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman
   for those of English life, but of a number of little groups
   scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each
   growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,
   religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing
   together into a municipal union which remained weak and
   imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed
   was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for
   whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here
   that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the
   Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged
   which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the
   means of communication to any part of Britain."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      pages 149 and 452-459._

   "London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]
   to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be
   the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom
   was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of
   Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the
   conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,
   and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,
   at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the
   history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be
   compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of
   the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.
   Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had
   spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.
   Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At
   last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their
   headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make
   truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their
   own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience
   and political sagacity, the possession of London was a
   necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His
   preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict
   is the story of his life. His first great success was the
   capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task
   of all his later years."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.
   Resistance to the Danes.

   See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

LONDON: 12th Century.
   Magnitude and importance of the city.

   "We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of
   Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the
   Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on
   account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
   which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,
   the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,
   were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city
   in England. There have been different estimates of its
   population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
   could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls
   within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3)._

LONDON: 14th Century.
   Guilds.
   Livery Companies.

      See GUILDS.

LONDON: A. D. 1381.
   In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

LONDON: 16th Century.
   In Shakespeare's time.

   "The London of those days did not present the gigantic
   uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become
   wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as
   yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of
   moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and
   gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with
   the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of
   originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and
   domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then
   the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows
   and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay
   attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live
   apart in other districts; the nobility still had their
   mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen
   Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to
   some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through
   the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of
   her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or
   Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her
   magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where
   the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of
   the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the
   brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was
   crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as
   crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined
   its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.
   Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,
   and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of
   'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the
   Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by
   catching salmon.
{2037}
   In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,
   the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was
   to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:
   'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!
   Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of
   every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid
   all this life every now and again would be seen the
   perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding
   processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of
   train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and
   gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their
   existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,
   and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'
   shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of
   smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than
   7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for
   promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and
   its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew
   Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,
   where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great
   sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris
   Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was
   here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a
   pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear
   loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less
   attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit
   and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these
   amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the
   theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the
   Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni
   Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of
   his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at
   an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports
   of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in
   1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;
   however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,
   estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of
   foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the
   colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there
   amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and
   the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames
   alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of
   Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,
   sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical
   events had put new life into the English nation, and given it
   an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more
   especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon
   literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare
   had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the
   greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which
   lay principally in London."

      _K. Elze,
      William Shakespeare,
      chapter 3._

LONDON: A. D. 1647.
   Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LONDON: A. D. 1665
   The Great Plague.

   "The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the
   first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning
   of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to
   public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes
   from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar
   means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A
   third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the
   suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,
   people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and
   especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the
   17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not
   been started. Such being the conditions of existence in
   London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,
   now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long
   drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant
   reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its
   strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that
   the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their
   flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that
   ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which
   had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of
   St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two
   Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.
   The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous
   as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated
   that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of
   the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the
   deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his
   ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now
   became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the
   Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the
   only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the
   corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the
   earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather
   was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly
   broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a
   physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,
   scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come
   back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected
   from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who
   remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached
   repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms
   were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the
   first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so
   that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of
   the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular
   swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague
   spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The
   patients frequently expired the same day that they were
   seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were
   circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the
   streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,
   and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness
   of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number
   of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality
   recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that
   month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the
   beginning of October.
{2038}
   A change of weather at length occurred, and the average
   declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the
   number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas
   came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In
   all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during
   the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate
   estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the
   appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

      _W. J. Loftie,
      History of London,
      chapter 11 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN;
      _S. Pepys,
      Diary, 1665._

LONDON: A. D. 1666.
   The Great Fire.

   "While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive
   success on either side, a calamity happened in London which
   threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out
   [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread
   itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could
   extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of
   the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide
   effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of
   their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the
   flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and
   nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up
   of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400
   streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of
   the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the
   houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent
   east wind which blew; these were so many concurring
   circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of
   the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied
   with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some
   ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the
   Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great
   calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city
   and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,
   and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular
   than before. … London became much more healthy after the
   fire."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 64._

   "I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as
   far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate
   hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,
   Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,
   &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of
   yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The
   ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of
   my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find
   that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in
   ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient
   pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100
   more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see
   one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were
   calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and
   Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all
   ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of
   what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and
   tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not
   asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger
   sight than any I had yet beheld."

      _J. Evelyn,
      Diary,
      September 7, 1666 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Pepys,
      Diary, September 2-15, 1666
      (volume 4)._

      _L. Phillimore,
      Sir Christopher Wren,
      chapters 6-7._

LONDON: A. D. 1685.
   The most populous capital in Europe.
   The first lighting of the streets.

   "There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,
   during about half a century, the most populous capital in
   Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least
   1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.
   London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long
   ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There
   is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then
   bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole
   trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest
   vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The
   shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to
   have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a
   third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be
   noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.
   [1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change
   which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body
   of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An
   ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters
   patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive
   right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate
   consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on
   moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to
   twelve of the clock."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

LONDON: A. D. 1688.
   The Irish Night.

   The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the
   morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak
   of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to
   promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic
   chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic
   States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of
   December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places
   presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met
   at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.
   … In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the
   provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more
   formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,
   and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible
   that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King
   James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which
   had been composed for the most part of troops brought over
   from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish
   soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and
   children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in
   the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere
   terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while
   their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for
   fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern
   preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if
   such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at
   all the windows. The public places were as bright as at
   noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than
   20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak
   of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.
   During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection
   of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not
   been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers
   were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant
   ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant
   from each other."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 10._

{2039}

LONDON: A. D. 1780.
   The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

LONDON: A. D. 1848.
   The last Chartist demonstration.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.

LONDON: A. D. 1851.
   The great Exhibition.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

   ----------LONDON: End----------

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.
   Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.
   The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;
      and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

   ----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------

LONDONDERRY:
   Origin and Name.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.
   The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.
   The Siege.

   James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the
   Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter
   Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from
   the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,
   to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,
   if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his
   forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the
   Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary
   had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within
   the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the
   summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire
   of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry
   crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate
   opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the
   strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite
   bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles
   Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a
   summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very
   great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon
   suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the
   presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,
   who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen
   to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,
   being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired
   them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and
   Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They
   mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under
   eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but
   they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000
   accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them
   to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's
   estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon
   possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of
   April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.
   … No impression was made during nine days upon the
   determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced
   his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege
   went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the
   commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and
   the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and
   insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in
   which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part
   of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy
   stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,
   and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the
   15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in
   the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay
   at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the
   heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his
   command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring
   that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he
   would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring
   districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to
   starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus
   beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for
   three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all
   the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and
   the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary
   villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed
   his displeasure at this proceeding."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 34._

   "The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more
   frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more
   by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that
   fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack
   was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were
   so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.
   Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell
   down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain
   remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted
   hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison
   appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of
   the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which
   few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was
   five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and
   but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was
   likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to
   slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by
   the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half
   dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of
   the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen
   far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from
   England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving
   expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he
   might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of
   success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy
   and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a
   frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,
   broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,
   and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th
   of July.
{2040}
   The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic
   undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The
   enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,
   on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;
   and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins
   marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.
   … So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the
   annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The
   garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to
   about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely
   ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO in:
      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 21._

      See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

   ----------LONDONDERRY: End--------

LONE JACK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

LONE STAR, Order of the.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LONE STAR FLAG.
LONE STAR STATE.

   On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas
   adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the
   flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas
   is often called the Lone Star State.

   ----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.
   Explored by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.
   Settlement of Brooklyn.

      See BROOKLYN.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.
   Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English
   of Connecticut.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.
   Title acquired for the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.
   Annexed to New York.

         See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
   The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

   ----------LONG ISLAND: End--------

LONG KNIVES, The.

      See YANKEE.

LONG PARLIAMENT.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

   The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four
   miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and
   one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the
   communication of their city with its port, were called the
   Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the
   walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of
   Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth
   had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.
   The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of
   the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.
   404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

LONGSTREET, General James.
   Siege of Knoxville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LONGUEVILLE,
   The Duchess de, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LORD.

   "Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band
   of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own
   free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their
   chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,
   and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,
   they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could
   distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his
   character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his
   official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name
   which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and
   with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has
   settled down into the modern form of Lord."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Norman Conquests,
      chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1)._

   On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'

      See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.

LORD CHANCELLOR, The.

      See CHANCELLOR.

LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LORDS, British House of.

   "The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased
   to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'
   and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the
   Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary
   character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed
   and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a
   consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,
   practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the
   national council were issued."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 7._

   "The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in
   which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost
   always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have
   been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by
   something like the monopoly of the best Government
   appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They
   are able to command the field sports and open-air life that
   conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats
   disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five
   families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,
   and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers
   were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,
   only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were
   represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family
   has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging
   the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in
   this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but
   the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,
   with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords
   would by this time have been practically extinguished.
{2041}
   Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only
   three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost
   to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the
   Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to
   the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we
   have to seck for the springs of national life."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      National Life and Character,
      pages 70-73._

   "The British peerage is something unique in the world. In
   England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying
   may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the
   British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's
   mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an
   aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an
   aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of
   Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times
   in English history when there has been a strong tendency to
   aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the
   king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of
   Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or
   people, but which had driven out both king and people, an
   aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into
   whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged
   body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never
   seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,
   the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a
   body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which
   no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its
   members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or
   distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial
   political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England
   there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble
   in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from
   generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in
   the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists
   in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and
   privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to
   himself only; his children are legally commoners; his
   grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other
   commoners. … A certain great position in the state is
   hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.
   The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his
   own person the whole nobility of the family."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      pages 305-307._

   "At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of
   Lords, made up thus:
   Peers, 469;
   Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;
   Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;
   Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;
   Lords Spiritual, 27.

   The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are
   appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.
   Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly
   judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak
   and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of
   the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from
   that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.
   As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who
   number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who
   number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in
   Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and
   hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords
   Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
   Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and
   Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine
   bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles
   have been given take their seats in the House immediately on
   appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of
   seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats
   in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop
   of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no
   vote."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 6._

   For an account of the transient abolition of the House of
   Lords in 1649,

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;
      and ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORDS OF ARTICLES.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.

LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.

LORDS OF THE ISLES.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;
      and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.

      See ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),
   The rule of.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

   ----------LORRAINE: Start--------

LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.
   Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.

   In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three
   grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,
   Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom
   of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,
   Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so
   formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian
   kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic
   dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or
   France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of
   the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,
   by France on the other."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1, note._

   "Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or
   Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century
   instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides
   Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the
   dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,
   having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of
   Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it
   has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the
   Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided
   between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept
   its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the
   two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on
   the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern
   Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the
   royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly
   to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East
   is considerably larger."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 6, section 1._

{2042}

   "Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share
   of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by
   disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further
   partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched
   and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three
   sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of
   his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor
   Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third
   of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of
   Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received
   the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"
   and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as
   follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their
   allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,
   the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories
   included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,
   Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of
   Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and
   Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in
   intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of
   Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,
   the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of
   Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved
   kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine
   family competitors successively came into the field for that
   much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles
   of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French
   dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of
   Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon
   forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot
   of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of
   those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon
   tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely
   Belgic territories, especially that very important district
   successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and
   Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.
   Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,
   Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories
   of the Belgic and German tongues."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 1, pages 361-370._

      See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.
   The dukedom established.

   The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately
   constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or
   Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang
   the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian
   duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the
   rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this
   proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.
   "Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …
   Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the
   Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed
   themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by
   influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,
   accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed
   themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the
   Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender
   throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win
   Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:
   he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was
   resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was
   constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,
   son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of
   the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little
   later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry
   the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived
   the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho
   gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under
   Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.
   Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his
   cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French
   Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant
   has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for
   our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is
   accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the
   hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received
   investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this
   disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the
   French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions
   over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,
   and granted the same to be held without let or interference
   from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German
   Empire."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, part 2, chapter 1
      and chapter 4, part 2._

   "Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained
   them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic
   Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to
   reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was
   thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was
   retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line
   still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom
   of Belgium."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1)._

LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.
   Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou
   and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.
   Union with Bar.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.
   Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.
   Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.
   Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.
   Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.
   Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.
   Its possession by the French.

   Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,
   the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with
   France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,
   made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …
   Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,
   and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than
   in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and
   career of the members of the house of Guise had brought
   Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the
   closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an
   independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624
   by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of
   the last duke. …
{2043}
   He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French
   Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de
   Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long
   sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke
   of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the
   Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while
   Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often
   omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France
   had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.
   His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain
   by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to
   keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,
   and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to
   trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of
   Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In
   January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by
   which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or
   state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.
   Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these
   causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.
   They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition
   could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a
   second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of
   Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of
   the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little
   change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act
   in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,
   the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had
   married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every
   way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He
   seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have
   to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second
   time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the
   duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'
   forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false
   as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,
   and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a
   treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the
   most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered
   his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of
   Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should
   be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu
   said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles
   pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the
   duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke
   also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two
   branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier
   of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the
   imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed
   again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered
   them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled
   with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking
   possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was
   entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its
   inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and
   misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar
   and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every
   side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,
   and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than
   could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the
   inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,
   cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the
   country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in
   that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as
   a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was
   granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,
   and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should
   remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the
   duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies
   whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his
   dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as
   of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly
   took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French
   again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the
   whole province was in their hands. It so continued until
   1663."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered
   to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,
   formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and
   sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,
   which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally
   culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria
   Theresa."

      _A. Gindely,
      History of the Thirty Years' War,
      volume 2, chapter 6, section 3._

LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.
   Desertion of the cause of the duke in the
   Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.
   Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.
   Restoration refused by the duke.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.
   Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with
   boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.
   Ceded to France.
   Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

LORRAINE: A. D, 1871.
   One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.
   Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German
   imperial province.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

   ----------LORRAINE: End----------

LOSANTIVILLE.

      See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.

   In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward
   IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir
   Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King
   Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a
   place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away
   their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a
   prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the
   rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the
   battle of Lose-coat Field."

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 8._

   The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.

{2044}

LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

      See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;
      also, SAMARIA.

LOTHAIRE,
   King of France, A. D. 954-986.

   Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;
   King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

   Lothaire II.,
   Emperor, 1133-1137;
   King of Germany, 1125-1137.

LOTHARINGIA.

      See LORRAINE.

LOTHIAN.

      See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

LOUIS,
   King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.

   Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.

   Louis I. (called The Pious),
   Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;
   King of Aquitaine, 781-814;
   King of the Franks, 814-840.

   Louis I. (called The Great),
   King of Hungary, 1342-1382;
   King of Poland, 1370-1382.

   Louis I.,
   King of Naples, 1382-1384;
   Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

   Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.

   Louis II. (called The Stammerer),
   King of France, 877-879.

   Louis II. (called The German),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.

   Louis II.,
   King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.

   Louis II.,
   King of Naples, 1389-1399;
   Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

   Louis III.,
   King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;
   East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

   Louis III. (called The Child),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.

   Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.

   Louis III.,
   Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,
   and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

   Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.

   Louis V. (of Bavaria),
   Emperor, 1327-1347;
   King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;
   King of Italy, 1327-1347.

   Louis V., King of France, 986-987.

   Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.

   Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.

   Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.

   Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.

   Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),
   King of France, 1314-1316;
   King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

   Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.

   Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.

   Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .

   Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),
   King of France, 1643-1715.

   Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.

   Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.

   Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,
   during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

   Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.

   Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

      See NAPOLEON III.

   Louis Philippe,
   King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.

LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

   ----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.
   The fortification of the Harbor.

      See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.
   Surrender to the New Englanders.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.
   Restoration to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.
   English designs against, postponed.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.
   Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

      See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

   ----------LOUISBOURG: End--------

LOUISIANA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.
   Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by
   Charles I. of England.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.
   Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La
   Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   Iberville's colonization.
   Separation in government from New France.
   Crozat's monopoly.
   The French territorial claim.

   "The court of France had been engaged in wars and political
   intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been
   effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve
   years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate
   fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition
   for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on
   foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.
   D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished
   naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful
   agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape
   Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30
   guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of
   marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,
   he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the
   Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served
   in the armies of France and had received an honorable
   discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and
   implements requisite for opening settlements in the
   wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that
   this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following
   March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from
   the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth
   of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of
   it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,
   which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.
   "Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect
   a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about
   fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,
   and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his
   colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New
   Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected
   them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and
   hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and
   security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two
   brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The
   following September an English corvette appeared in the river,
   intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and
   retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered
   terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,
   with many others, died.
{2045}
   "Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an
   additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with
   several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal
   settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;
   others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay
   of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold
   and occupy the country; for his principal object was to
   colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now
   built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54
   miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below
   the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been
   joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French
   Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river
   nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez
   tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the
   site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702
   war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and
   by order of the King of France the headquarters of the
   commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile
   River. This was the first European settlement within the
   present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola
   was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the
   French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between
   Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The
   whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30
   families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of
   the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now
   threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was
   broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to
   France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the
   colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380
   souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each
   other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,
   Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements
   of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,
   although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.
   Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible
   only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country
   under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was
   accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.
   The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was
   established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the
   site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still
   believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise
   and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the
   resources of the province under the influence of individual
   enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,
   in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,
   was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of
   France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this
   time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very
   extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was
   'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of
   Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,
   havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle
   of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,
   heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far
   as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore
   called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called
   Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or
   immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or
   Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that
   early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United
   States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky
   Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of
   Canada."

      _J. W. Monette,
     History of the Discovery and Settlement of the
     Valley of the Mississippi,
     book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.
   Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.
   The founding of New Orleans.

   "Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.
   His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and
   a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to
   surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the
   gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all
   Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for
   a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's
   concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company
   proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to
   administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build
   forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint
   such military governors as it should think fitting. These
   extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,
   dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western
   Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or
   associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,
   sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own
   cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of
   plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One
   colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation
   on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were
   located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.
   All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the
   plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered
   with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually
   a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the
   parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon
   African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or
   other of the West India islands. By some their employment was
   viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would
   soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and
   overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered
   against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.
   Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when
   the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their
   maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already
   existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled
   conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville
   governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of
   every sort from France, with which to put new life into the
   expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that
   Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of
   Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment
   of the delta which the river had been for ages silently
   building of its own mud and driftwood.
{2046}
   It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet
   above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in
   its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited
   for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the
   choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the
   alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as
   many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and
   building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the
   capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,
   in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the
   minority of Louis XV.

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      pages 126-128._

      ALSO IN:
      A. McF. Davis,
      Canada and Louisiana
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 1).

      _A. Thiers,
      The Mississippi Bubble,
      chapters 3-8._

      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.
   Surrendered to the Crown.
   Massacre of French by the Natchez,
   and destruction of that tribe.
   Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

   "The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France
   during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,
   found their way to his western possessions; and though the
   colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became
   in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence
   of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the
   returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of
   protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to
   surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was
   granted them. But though the Company of the West did little
   for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did
   something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,
   was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though
   at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in
   Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of
   stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river
   Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort
   Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the
   French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during
   which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of
   contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,
   had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through
   them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.
   Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain
   disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length
   the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both
   white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked
   out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],
   in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been
   commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and
   deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands
   and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the
   chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its
   site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the
   murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their
   ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the
   extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,
   every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the
   natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and
   children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully
   did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed
   by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their
   scalps; in three months they were driven from their country
   and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two
   years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent
   to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient
   and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of
   the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When
   Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of
   France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror
   into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly
   interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose
   the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were
   ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon
   the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be
   final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at
   the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small
   body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,
   proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked
   the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and
   was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his
   Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,
   was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette
   and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years
   more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000
   white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the
   Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of
   1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and
   wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March
   of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was
   concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into
   inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little
   that is interesting."

      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      pages 61-63._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Dumont,
      Historical Memoirs
      (French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5)._

      _C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
      2d series, lectures 5-7._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.
   The Casket Girls.
   Wives for the colonists.

   "In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company
   with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been
   taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The
   company had given to each of them a casket containing some
   articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in
   the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',
   or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of
   importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the
   casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

      _C. Gayarre,
      Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,
      page 396._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.
   Settlement of exiled Acadians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.
   East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to
   Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,
   to Spain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

{2047}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.
   The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

   "Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New
   Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,
   and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses
   and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;
   by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right
   to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their
   protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the
   response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the
   colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de
   Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession
   for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three
   capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and
   gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million
   livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of
   less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused
   to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their
   nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the
   government under the French flag by the old French officers,
   at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish
   restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an
   ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to
   accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an
   arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,
   but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa
   retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and
   opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish
   jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things
   continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary
   and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the
   currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total
   loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the
   session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious
   ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with
   the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,
   agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed
   to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,
   with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The
   people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the
   city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous
   assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and
   the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of
   October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior
   council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their
   griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom
   of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the
   expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500
   or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;
   when the French flag was displayed on the public square,
   children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised
   by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we
   will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and
   sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected
   their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and
   memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor
   between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative
   but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Thompson,
      Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 4._

      _C. Gayarré,
      History of Louisiana: French Domination,
      volume 2, lecture 3-6._

LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.
   Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."

   "It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic
   result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month
   followed the October uprising without one of those incidents
   that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.
   In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted
   his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French
   cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.
   Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the
   governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still
   remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is
   probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was
   struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any
   strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time
   which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to
   June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people
   of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news
   that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in
   overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone
   choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white
   cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a
   republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out
   upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and
   called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100
   men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with
   dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the
   next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,
   to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and
   Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of
   the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive
   but brave and manly address presented the homage of the
   people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word
   seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was
   answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate
   justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and
   to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more
   than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of
   the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled
   its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force
   of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under
   Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial
   militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired
   from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,
   accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces
   of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal
   possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the
   principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a
   planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of
   his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met
   his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate
   where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former
   attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young
   ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and
   Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.
{2048}
   The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials
   saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the
   fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners
   were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.
   "'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …
   O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain
   and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted
   body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part
   of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana
   Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de
   Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the
   province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher
   commission of captain-general he continued for a time in
   control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the
   Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the
   public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at
   least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the
   name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of
   notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the
   vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in
   which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large
   portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,
   O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,
   leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.
   The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He
   had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it
   only with velvet strokes."

      _G. W. Cable,
      The Creoles of Louisiana,
      chapter 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
      History and Present Condition of New Orleans
      (United States Tenth Census, volume 19)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the
   Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between
   Spain and the United States.
   Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.
   Wilkinson's intrigues.

   "Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains
   into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was
   in progress. … At once it became a question of vital
   importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce
   with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must
   cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was
   the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left
   free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was
   not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the
   north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the
   present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the
   northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],
   was the property of the United States, but the west bank,
   together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That
   power, while conceding to the people of the United States the
   free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American
   ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive
   jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs
   duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of
   the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would
   place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not
   merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the
   very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable
   that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful
   resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat
   it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to
   recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As
   citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper
   portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the
   sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a
   natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it
   needed support—with the opinions of publicists of
   acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty
   of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,
   then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the
   free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and
   length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the
   payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right
   and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers
   seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said
   that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,
   while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent
   to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was
   specially charged with the duty to see that the free
   navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors
   to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was
   compelled to return home with the American claim still
   disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this
   country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,
   but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its
   claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain
   a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf
   to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should
   forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was
   given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a
   united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to
   threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the
   feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and
   uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed
   themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled
   to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice
   in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well
   as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and
   perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter
   a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …
   One of the difficult questions which confronted the new
   government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to
   deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish
   levies on American commerce were in some cases almost
   prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad
   valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy
   backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time
   submit to pay them. If the national government failed to
   secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in
   such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most
   prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James
   Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was
   shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the
   setting up of an independent State Government.
{2049}
   In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to
   impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an
   amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.
   His representations for a time had considerable effect, and
   the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but
   Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish
   limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable
   settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this
   invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine
   good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view
   was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers
   and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the
   course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by
   liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been
   allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with
   the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from
   New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;
   a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which
   probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he
   came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal
   relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his
   appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound
   the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He
   came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the
   country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was
   particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver
   up the posts within American limits was known to have been
   influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British
   agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.
   … Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European
   wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own
   American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and
   at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to
   Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby
   among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the
   people of the United States for the term of three years to
   make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for
   their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free
   from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental
   expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty
   contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the
   American authorities that a decisive step had been taken
   towards the complete recognition of American claims. The
   treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of
   Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to
   it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory
   from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the
   mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.
   … The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow
   of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda
   was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United
   States while the war of Independence was pending and formed
   acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea
   of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from
   England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he
   enlisted in the French service and for a time held important
   military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his
   old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the
   necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were
   approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the
   relations between France and the United States seemed likely
   to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils
   likely to result from the extension of territory, listened
   with approval to the project of a combined attack by British
   and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have
   been willing, with the approval of the government, to
   personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned
   upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great
   reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest
   interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of
   her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to
   France."

      _T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Safford,
      The Blennerhassett Papers,
      chapter 5._

      _H. Marshall,
      History of Kentucky,
      volume 1, chapters 12-15._

      _J. H. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      _J. M. Brown,
      The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

      _T. M. Green,
      The Spanish Conspiracy._

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.
   The last days of Spanish rule.
   The great domain transferred to France,
   and sold by Napoleon to the United States.
   The bounds of the purchase.

   "During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted
   every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line
   as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and
   another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory
   and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until
   the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the
   Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the
   province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly
   made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,
   and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The
   man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,
   insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the
   border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above
   the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de
   Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee
   fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy
   of restricting immigration and of discriminating against
   Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had
   been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should
   not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but
   that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans
   all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,
   it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,
   or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island
   of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the
   expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant
   at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and
   refused to designate another place in accordance with the
   stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a
   storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the
   United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration
   in the direction of Louisiana.
{2050}
   Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to
   the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared
   imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new
   intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders
   to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the
   Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These
   orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between
   his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration
   increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the
   Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more
   years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and
   Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy
   religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …
   On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more
   grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This
   effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and
   the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …
   Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the
   irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from
   Spain and that this meant a division of the territories
   between France and the United States. To a large majority of
   Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.
   The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France
   was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of
   Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the
   21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had
   hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of
   25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his
   implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his
   design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the
   colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He
   must take possession and hold it, or he must see England
   become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars
   and political complications and well understanding that it
   would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American
   enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United
   States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.
   … Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not
   be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly
   surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was
   signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing
   to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the
   territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …
   was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was
   ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the
   United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this
   strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to
   another republic a whole country without in the least
   consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and
   all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,
   we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States
   could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that
   attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,
   just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

      _M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 6, with foot-note._

   "No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the
   territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio
   del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might
   at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat
   vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with
   Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky
   Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it
   extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend
   has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public
   papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.
   But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he
   purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our
   title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.
   Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we
   can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

      _Judge T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3)._

   "By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the
   north included all that was contiguous to the waters that
   flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern
   boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern
   waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,
   France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle
   the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,
   marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.
   This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond
   the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was
   based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of
   the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against
   Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,
   between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power
   ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi
   River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of
   France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created
   by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and
   its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by
   the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all
   territory north of the 42d degree."

      _Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,
      The Louisiana Purchase
      (Papers of American Historical Association,
      volume 1, page 259)._

   As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were
   eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.
   1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles
   in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on
   the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the
   present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the
   whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
   Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the
   Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole
   of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and
   Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.
   If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,
   then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with
   Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      page 105._

   On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana
   purchase,

      See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

   Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and
   incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be
   found in the following works:—

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Jefferson;
      volume 2, chapters 1-3._

      _D. O. Gilman,
      James Monroe,
      chapter 4._

      _B. Marbois,
      History of Louisiana,
      part 2._

      _American State Papers: Foreign Relations,
      volume 2, pages 506-583._

{2051}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Lewis and Clark's exploration
   of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
   The purchase divided into
   the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.
   The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;
   the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

   "On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing
   the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,
   the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing
   for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under
   the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into
   effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the
   interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the
   legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of
   incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

       _G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,
       History and Present Condition of New Orleans
       (United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33._

   "All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed
   into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For
   judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper
   Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the
   territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an
   act "which erected the district into a territory of the first
   or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to
   the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,
   the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having
   been received into the federal Union as the State of
   Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was
   advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second
   grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

      _L. Carr,
      Missouri,
      chapter 5._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.

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

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
   The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as
   the State of Louisiana.

   "The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented
   annually by emigration from the United States. According to
   the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the
   Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of
   this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts
   contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the
   remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of
   the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than
   2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved
   February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a
   convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the
   admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent
   state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the
   original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday
   in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of
   January following, having adopted a Constitution for the
   proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was
   accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally
   admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an
   equal footing with the original states, from and after the
   30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the
   treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'
   of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the
   addition of the Florida parishes.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

   This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.
   Jackson's defense of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).
   Farragut's capture of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).
   New Orleans under General Butler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).
   Appointment of a Military Governor.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
   Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.
   The Red River Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.
   President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state
   government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
   The first Reconstruction experiment.
   The Riot at New Orleans.
   Establishment of military rule.

   "In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by
   the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of
   almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution
   framed and adopted in 1864].

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

   The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the
   State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the
   20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous
   instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have
   them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in
   Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed
   against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the
   enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to
   numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable
   condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had
   established the government of 1864, to remodel the
   constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by
   reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment
   having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in
   obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in
   the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in
   conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity
   existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was
   issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.
{2052}
   Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans
   looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the
   time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of
   feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city
   police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,
   resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I
   happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of
   the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city
   at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by
   affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the
   Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my
   staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of
   the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me
   that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior
   military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal
   government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and
   that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the
   6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the
   riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The
   convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members
   absenting themselves because the tone of the general public
   was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say
   from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and
   across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an
   American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten
   men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal
   Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the
   Institute [where the convention was held] there was some
   throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been
   held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of
   disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,
   about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a
   policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again
   fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate
   fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.
   This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was
   displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the
   firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From
   the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the
   building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the
   audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they
   retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was
   broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the
   colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or
   were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out
   the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired
   upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that
   formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken
   prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were
   fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were
   stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with
   brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares
   from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission
   investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of
   testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the
   conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as
   an investigation by a select committee of the House of
   Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was
   embraced in the committee's report, and among other
   conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous
   attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of
   massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the
   determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to
   break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee
   held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and
   recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional
   government therein." In the following March the Military
   Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1867 (MARCH).

   General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth
   military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and
   Texas.

      _P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,
      39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16._

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.
   Reconstruction complete.
   Restored representation in Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

   ----------LOUISIANA: End----------

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:
   Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   ----------LOUVAIN: Start--------

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.
   Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

   ----------LOUVAIN: End--------

LOUVAIN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

LOUVRE, The.

   "The early history of the Louvre is involved in great
   obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its
   erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet
   with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept
   here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called
   'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a
   sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of
   the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by
   the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no
   mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even
   under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip
   Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a
   kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with
   towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take
   in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more
   than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in
   1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles
   VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,
   inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing
   remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles
   V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that
   called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and
   finished by Henry II. in 1548."

      _History of Paris
     (London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2)._

{2053}

   The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,
   'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis
   I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by
   introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the
   work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after
   reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had
   been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we
   know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious
   scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,
   though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the
   works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at
   least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis
   XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions
   at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the
   Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest
   spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

      _P. G. Hamerton.
      Paris in Old and Present Times,
      chapter 6. _

LOVERS, War of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

LOW CHURCH.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LOW COUNTRIES, The.

      See NETHERLANDS.

LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

      See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.

LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOYALISTS, American.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

   ----------LUBECK: Start--------

LUBECK:
   Origin and rise.

   "Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a
   small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of
   the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much
   frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the
   country, however, afforded them little security, and it had
   been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When
   Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke
   of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the
   Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his
   dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant
   establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of
   Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent
   basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also
   established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a
   municipal government, he secured the personal, while he
   prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.
   The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a
   proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and
   Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance
   that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …
   This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large
   increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, pages 229-230._

      See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUBECK: A. D. 1806.
   Battle of French and Prussians.

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

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

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

LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.
   Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

LUBECK: A. D. 1866.
   Surrender of free privileges.
   Entrance into the Zollverein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

   ----------LUBECK: End--------

LUBECK, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

LUCANIANS, The.

      See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

   ----------LUCCA: Start--------

LUCCA:
   The founding of the city.

      See MUTINA AND PARMA.

LUCCA: 8th Century.
   The seat of Tuscan government.

      See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.
   In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.
   War with Pisa.

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.
   The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,
   and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.
   Erected into an imperial duchy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.
   Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.
   Sold to Florence.
   Taken by Pisa.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

LUCCA: A. D. 1805.
   Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

   After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the
   Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some
   time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,
   until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

   ----------LUCCA: End--------

LUCENA, Battle of (1483).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LUCERES, The.

      See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.

LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.

   Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.

LUCKA, Battle of (1308).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

LUCKNOW, The siege of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),
      and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

LUCOTECIA.

      See LUTETIA.

LUD.
      Ancient Lydia.

LUDDITES, Rioting of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LUDI.
LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

   "Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the
   worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages
   were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words
   Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as
   synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were
   denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,
   held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th
   April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …
   Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place
   where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

   1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in
   a circus.
   2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a
   theatre.
   3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually
   exhibited in an amphitheatre."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 10._

{2054}

LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

      See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

LUDI SÆCULARES, The.

      See SECULAR GAMES.

LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),
   Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.

LUDWIG.

      See LOUIS.

LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

      See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.

LUGUVALLIUM.

   The Roman military station at the western extremity of the
   Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of
   Carlisle.

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 8. _

LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.

LUKETIA.

      See LUTETIA.

LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

LUND, Battle of (1676).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LUNEBURG, Duchy of.

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

LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).

      See EBBSDORF.

LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUPERCAL.
LUPERCALIA.

   The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman
   legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a
   she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the
   Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as
   having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and
   large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This
   grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral
   divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of
   their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,
   on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of
   Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to
   the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,
   whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still
   celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 35._

   "At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed
   in goats' skins, beating all those they met with
   strips of goats' leather."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 13._

LURIS.

      See GYPSIES.

LUSIGNAN, House of.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;
      also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

LUSITANIA.
LUSITANIANS.

   The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the
   Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more
   resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.
   In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.
   The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the
   prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,
   the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.
   But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so
   effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange
   terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded
   three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,
   which being done he surrounded them with his troops and
   massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a
   man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his
   surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for
   ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the
   end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some
   traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province
   which was afterwards formed out of the country of the
   Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly
   identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it
   coincided with only in part.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 1._

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

   On the settlement of the Alans,

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

LUSTRUM.

   After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties
   committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to
   offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great
   expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up
   once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is
   frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the
   day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to
   assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)
   ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and
   foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,
   whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being
   led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who
   were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while
   the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of
   prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman
   State."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

LUTETIA,
LUKETIA,
LUCOTECIA.

   The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a
   small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people
   called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine
   which Paris now covers and surrounds.

      See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.

LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,
      1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LUTHER: On Education.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.

LUTTER, Battle of (1626).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).
   Death of Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).

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

LUXEMBURG, The House of:
   Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,
   and Brandenburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;
      also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

   ----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------

{2055}

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.
   Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

   ----------LUXEMBURG: End--------

LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

LYCEUM, The Athenian.

      See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;
      and GYMNASIA, GREEK;
      also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,
      see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the
   ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole
   authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do
   better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the
   Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these
   words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share
   in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the
   common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting
   any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the
   greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones
   of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they
   pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …
   And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and
   then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of
   Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to
   consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of
   course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with
   the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution
   Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a
   Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal
   government."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 4, section 4._

LYCIANS, The.

   The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern
   peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed
   population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the
   Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also
   Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and
   Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi.
   Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by
   means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came
   across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and
   venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle,
   they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled
   by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans
   entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable
   reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of
   Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom
   the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a
   degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on
   whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz.,
   Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and
   knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring
   nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly
   political life, renounced at an early period the public
   practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and
   Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in
   heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater
   refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which
   they held the female sex bears marked testimony."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

LYCURGUS, Constitution of.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION.

LYDIANS, The.

   "On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians,
   which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had
   early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in
   advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks
   forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and
   then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth
   century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the
   Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians
   in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the
   establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the
   ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and
   the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of
   the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the
   Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It
   was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities
   rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus,
   and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17._

   "On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and
   Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its
   original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also
   to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as
   we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of
   the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy
   the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking
   generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of
   this people, and of its consequent important place in
   civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor.
   The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the
   mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians
   are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have
   any intimate knowledge as a political community."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the
   Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the
   Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last
   king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715,
   by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom
   the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and
   its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of
   the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C.
   546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days
   as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 17 and 32._

   Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive
   inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites
   belonged.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      editor, Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 4._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;
      and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

{2056}

LYGIANS, The.

   "Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A.
   D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people
   who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and
   Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by
   their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they
   are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by
   art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism.
   Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They
   choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet
   the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these
   horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general
   engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell
   alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor,
   unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an
   honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety
   to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in
   the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the
   nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history
   either of Germany or of the empire."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

   "Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians
   on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs
   by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century.
   These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."

      See
      _Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus,
      page 158._

      _W. Smith,
      Note to above, from Gibbon_.

   "The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several
   clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi,
   Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder
   and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and
   probably a portion of Silesia."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

   "The Elysii are supposed to have given name to Silesia."

      _Note to the Oxford Translation of Tacitus: Germany,
      chapter 43._

LYKIANS, The.

      See LYCIANS.

LYMNE, in Roman times.

      See PORTUS LEMANIS.

LYON, General Nathaniel:
   Campaign in Missouri, and death.

      See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).

   ----------LYONS: Start--------

LYONS:
   Under the Romans.

   Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul
   of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called
   Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few
   years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a
   province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which
   comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the
   Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum
   became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the
   west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the
   Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans
   driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as
   marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in
   fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a
   metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to
   have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech
   took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see
   how the name became Lyon."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note._

   "Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence
   always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset
   composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman
   franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the
   communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal
   relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North
   American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or
   Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors
   or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons.
   Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin
   half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after
   the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial
   money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier
   period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the
   headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and
   to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. …
   Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later
   period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 3._

LYONS: A. D. 500.
   Under the Burgundians.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

LYONS: 10th Century.
   In the kingdom of Aries.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843—933.

LYONS: 12th Century.
   The Poor Men of Lyons."

      See WALDENSES.

LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.
   Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.
   Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LYONS: A. D. 1795.
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The White Terror.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------LYONS: End----------

LYONS, Battle of (A. D. 197).

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

LYSIMACHUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280.

LYTTON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1876, 1877;
      and AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAARMORS.

      See MORMAERS.

MACÆ, The.

      See LIBYANS.

McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACALO, Battle of (1427).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.

MACCABEES, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

McCLELLAN, General George B.
   Campaign in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Appointment to chief command.
   Organization of the Army of the Potomac.

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

{2057}

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Peninsular campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   During General Pope's campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),
      to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:
   Defeat in Presidential election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

MACDONALD, Marshal.
   Campaigns of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL),
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),
      (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,
   and his victory on Lake Champlain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

McDOWELL, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.

   "The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the
   latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would
   naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of
   primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of
   authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon
   with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,
   frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,
   forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable
   that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace
   as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient
   religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay
   corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,
   instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France
   and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in
   Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the
   Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the
   emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'
   who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.
   'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he
   began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best
   guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of
   serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his
   person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were
   'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …
   who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the
   conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens
   d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his
   duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called
   sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's
   body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon
   imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have
   given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.
   Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete
   armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were
   occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the
   court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.
   … Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the
   chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the
   representative of the sovereign, being attended by his
   mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated
   to him."

      _W. Kelly,
      The Great Mace
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3)._

   ----------MACEDONIA: Start--------

MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.

   "The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from
   the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great
   perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the
   loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely
   destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate
   cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the
   foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings
   of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good
   system of central or pacific administration. But the
   Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an
   aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct
   petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider
   ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,
   who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as
   children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting
   the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early
   period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.
   They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village
   residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original
   seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain
   of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of
   the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects
   Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western
   boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward
   as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was
   different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also
   from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently
   not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the
   acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and
   people. … The large and comparatively productive region
   covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to
   explain that increase of ascendency which they successively
   acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a
   late period that they became united under one government. At
   first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own
   prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the
   southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally
   distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats
   somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the
   Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and
   became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at
   Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of
   the modern Vodhena."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.
   Subjection to Persia.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.
   Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

{2058}

MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.
   Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.
   His acquisition of Amphipolis.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.
   Philip's conquest of Thessaly.
   Intervention in the Sacred War.
   Victory at Chæronea.
   Mastery of Greece.
   Preparation to invade Persia.
   Assassination.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.
   War with the Olynthian Confederacy.
   Destruction of Olynthus.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.
   Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.
   Alexander's campaigns at the north.
   Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.
      Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire
      by Alexander the Great.

   Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the
   midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the
   Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who
   applied himself first, with significant energy, to the
   chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern
   frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:
   B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne
   "when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than
   his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and
   admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated
   attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He
   had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,
   light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the
   ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both
   Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the
   shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this
   moderate force was surely as much as any commander could
   handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile
   country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,
   and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,
   with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the
   Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek
   mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river
   Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,
   and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy
   infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left
   wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of
   the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main
   attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in
   echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening
   to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces
   towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No
   sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy
   cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle
   in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he
   completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike
   straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for
   Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the
   coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against
   him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So
   then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;
   he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and
   stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear
   safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian
   fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and
   had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.
   333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following
   year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.
   Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the
   headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great
   king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,
   the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied
   Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow
   his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous
   cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast
   army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in
   the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded
   him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his
   favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of
   cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,
   who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and
   occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut
   off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.
   The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,
   between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room
   for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high
   ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was
   done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the
   Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the
   Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large
   reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with
   his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops
   opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the
   king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had
   Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of
   the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,
   for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the
   Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,
   and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the
   phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued
   about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of
   his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The
   greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt
   prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now
   strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he
   boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the
   battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of
   conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed
   many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]
   cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and
   showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the
   siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,
   to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all
   the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a
   short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated
   the country as a province under his sway, with kindness
   towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and
   founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in
   claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the
   Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.
{2059}
   The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.
   331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of
   as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian
   cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to
   fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British
   have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant
   cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of
   regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had
   again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he
   blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was
   not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to
   the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.
   For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to
   occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals
   of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great
   cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,
   Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all
   full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great
   palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount
   of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than
   £30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)
   had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of
   gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the
   army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for
   luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered
   and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of
   comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey
   such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far
   stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.
   And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded
   himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the
   Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the
   unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake
   Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian
   passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The
   narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything
   in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian
   as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,
   his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.
   330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself
   married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus
   assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'
   legitimate successor."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 49-50 (volume 6)._

      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Alexander,
      chapters 18-31._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.
   Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.
   His invasion of India.
   His death at Babylon.
   His character and aims.

   "After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,
   Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia
   and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of
   Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on
   the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a
   little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went
   on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern
   Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh
   mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.
   Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),
   but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.
   Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,
   now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed
   the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and
   defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their
   country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier
   of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave
   Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.
   327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer
   India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager
   for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus
   he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their
   way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself
   marched westwards with the army through the deserts of
   Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,
   through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.
   C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some
   months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and
   punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,
   Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his
   way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with
   his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up
   the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were
   displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at
   Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief
   officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to
   break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and
   to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between
   the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in
   the regiments which had hitherto contained none but
   Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike
   districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.
   Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an
   expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for
   ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and
   carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus
   they were to be put together again, and so make their way to
   Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring
   of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his
   journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of
   the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh
   troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition
   was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with
   fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two
   years old."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Greece (Primer),
      chapter 7._

   "Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander
   master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the
   immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and
   Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the
   world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of
   Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries
   was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,
   Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the
   11th century.
{2060}
   The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the
   Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of
   the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very
   possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,
   from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and
   Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for
   nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in
   Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.
   But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they
   became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they
   fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their
   government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but
   their ruler might himself still have remained European and
   Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the
   possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary
   possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither
   Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved
   in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone
   too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his
   conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the
   character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him
   put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was
   himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman
   success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told
   of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,
   Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than
   Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously
   believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a
   stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in
   pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human
   parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the
   conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the
   heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and
   genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand
   which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,
   honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he
   demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held
   that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly
   ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little
   respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage
   which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of
   respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and
   Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal
   Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece
   to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth
   refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political
   exiles. This last was an interference with the internal
   government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by
   Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in
   other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst
   failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The
   unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;
   no man can tell what might have been done by one of such
   mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his
   career. That he looked forward to still further conquests
   seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,
   alike those which were won and those which were still to be
   won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he
   to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of
   Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much
   warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of
   Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and
   eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.
   Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Alexander
      (Historical Essays, series 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.
   Revolt in Greece.
   The Lamian War.
   Subjugation of Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.
   The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.
   First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi
   or Successors of Alexander.

   Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of
   three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the
   sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,
   Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the
   haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both
   widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of
   Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,
   Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards
   united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under
   the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last
   proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of
   Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was
   quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The
   provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now
   divided between the generals of his army, who are known in
   history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division
   was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see
   EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,
   Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater
   and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The
   remaining provinces either did not come under the new division
   [see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of
   notice,"

      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      page 222._

   Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,
   and it was not until two years after his death that his
   remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still
   shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble
   Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of
   Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union
   which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.
   But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of
   the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his
   destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence
   it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the
   Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence
   after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their
   leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto
   fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders
   to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to
   join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were
   disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army
   against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined
   troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.
{2061}
   On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to
   appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.
   Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with
   Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of
   Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.
   Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower
   Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army
   against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more
   than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the
   field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been
   left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false
   information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening
   through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and
   Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in
   the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes
   sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days
   before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no
   more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became
   dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly
   encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was
   murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief
   struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is
   commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].
   … As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of
   Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of
   wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won
   upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered
   him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so
   dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and
   the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the
   news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This
   intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They
   hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents
   public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to
   these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the
   wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable
   talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble
   husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival
   of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to
   the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by
   Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of
   regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme
   power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,
   and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the
   crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope
   with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the
   open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and
   maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting
   offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the
   support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater
   produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the
   meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal
   friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency
   to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on
   account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and
   ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had
   not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the
   powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close
   alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to
   strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the
   strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive
   Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the
   Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In
   the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government
   of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had
   murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his
   forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable
   to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was
   forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was
   immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the
   widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the
   youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought
   and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus
   consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this
   marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not
   venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,
   where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the
   few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In
   Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,
   though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the
   mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the
   Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to
   attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields
   from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,
   both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides
   broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage
   had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the
   enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and
   delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the
   hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes
   was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished
   the Argyraspides for their treachery."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      The Student's Manual of Ancient History,
      chapter 11, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 96 (volume 12)._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.
   The first league and war against Antigonus.
   Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.

   "Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the
   successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled
   over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the
   Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and
   blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.
   … He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous
   Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,
   yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.
   Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family
   had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful
   Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the
   Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,
   and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,
   and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of
   whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the
   throne.
{2062}
   Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and
   master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the
   unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,
   but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in
   Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who
   possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear
   his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,
   which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.
   The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having
   escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter
   to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and
   Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable
   power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was
   carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were
   various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat
   inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at
   Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.
   C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and
   Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the
   supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until
   the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the
   same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the
   whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
   by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently
   this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing
   jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death
   of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where
   they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only
   link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and
   a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.
   Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the
   peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded
   that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern
   satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,
   notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under
   command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,
   accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by
   garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the
   triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon
   followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,
   bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister
   of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when
   Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.
   Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the
   Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his
   uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For
   more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and
   Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks
   independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased
   to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,
   indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had
   suffered so much as during the time when such great promises
   were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still
   possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and
   fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the
   Macedonian rule."

      _T. T. Timayenis,
      History of Greece,
      part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 5-6._

[Image: Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great
and his successors.]

MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
   Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.
   His siege of Rhodes.
   The last combination against Antigonus.
   His defeat and death at Ipsus.
   Partition of his dominions.

   After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three
   years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest
   Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all
   the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307
   B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,
   with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.
   Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of
   'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of
   ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the
   Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition
   to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the
   Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius
   the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than
   ten years. … During the first period of his administration
   he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have
   improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with
   useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to
   philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered
   his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for
   luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost
   the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians
   heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;
   his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city
   to him, and to close his political career by retiring to
   Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to
   the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient
   constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and
   ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with
   the basest and most abject flattery

      See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

   … Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early
   in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to
   Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to
   its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that
   ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient
   naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size
   of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and
   so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the
   strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also
   conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,
   Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at
   Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon
   Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of
   revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,
   which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was
   from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his
   name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain
   attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and
   grant the Rhodians peace.

      See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

{2063}

   Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great
   progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was
   besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.
   Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently
   defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered
   Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant
   flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during
   which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no
   great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was
   recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his
   assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of
   the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals
   was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in
   which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.
   Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.
   Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,
   whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to
   Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at
   Ipsus, refused to receive him."

      _W. Smith,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 45._

   "After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to
   divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in
   the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had
   achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted
   either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that
   they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share
   all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not
   clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor
   is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor
   was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not
   only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the
   Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of
   Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother
   Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty
   remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by
   Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the
   garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right
   as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however
   began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his
   claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in
   its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to
   withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native
   princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of
   Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken
   advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to
   establish their authority over extensive territories in the
   west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus
   must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it
   transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor
   because it would have been more desirable that he should have
   triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory
   led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise
   have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained
   confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have
   subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the
   inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the
   traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and
   his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus
   founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his
   father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of
   Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,
   while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For
   the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of
   Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as
   the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute
   it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the
   greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an
   independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on
   the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear
   that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as
   to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that
   he should keep whatever he might acquire there."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 59 (volume 7)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 86-87 (volume 3)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.
   Death of Casander.
   Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.
   Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.
   Abdication and death of Ptolemy.
   Murder of Seleucus.
   Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.

   "Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of
   dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to
   assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect
   his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to
   keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and
   his preparations to reconquer his father's position.
   Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,
   and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as
   well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected
   in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,
   apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.
   So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family
   relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions
   prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to
   extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would
   doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of
   Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious
   reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both
   him and his son prisoners, and released them very
   chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure
   kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,
   so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the
   poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom
   he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the
   battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world
   arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king
   Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and
   friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,
   another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy
   (Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,
   who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest
   son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who
   accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at
   foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,
   installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,
   and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,
   nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject
   before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the
   first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a
   half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,
   Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and
   popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired
   against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was
   a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.
{2064}
   This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the
   country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince
   called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with
   an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a
   great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It
   was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last
   but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,
   in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.
   C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of
   Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic
   possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son
   Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of
   his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he
   was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his
   train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army
   which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for
   Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet
   made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were
   full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus
   in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in
   buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:
   B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to
   make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their
   affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change
   of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were
   pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from
   recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos
   established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,
   induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against
   Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her
   children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the
   Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and
   thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered
   career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.
   (Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was
   the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first
   Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,
   Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant
   for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and
   doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the
   Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by
   his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,
   that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where
   sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.
   Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the
   suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.
   Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in
   possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the
   claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a
   new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a
   terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over
   the world."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60 (volume 8)._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.
   Invasion by the Gauls.
   Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
   Strife for the throne.
   Failures of Pyrrhus.
   Success of Antigonus Gonatus.
   His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.

   "On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of
   Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted
   as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a
   new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,
   the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself
   since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in
   Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by
   his father, and, having taken into his service a body of
   Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master
   of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus
   Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of
   Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia
   and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian
   king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this
   combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his
   claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,
   and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this
   fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the
   Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,
   Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his
   schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing
   in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of
   Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus
   had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose
   recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The
   Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others
   occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above
   all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,
   ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair
   prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body
   of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.
   273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him
   battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his
   soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a
   wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,
   placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who
   might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,
   if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,
   instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and
   employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic
   knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon
   the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition
   into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough
   and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped
   to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the
   capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.
   Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the
   city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately
   threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.
{2065}
   In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the
   adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then
   slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an
   Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the
   Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced
   his second reign by establishing his influence over most of
   the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with
   the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta
   and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies
   rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon
   succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by
   the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising
   prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even
   acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the
   son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,
   re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,
   invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out
   of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but
   from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was
   able once more to devote his undivided attention to the
   subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and
   rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,
   … he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain
   possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.
   A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the
   Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]
   which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give
   to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little
   inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      pages 261-263._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 100-102._

MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.
   The Roman conquest.
   Extinction of the kingdom.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.
   Last relations with the Seleucid empire.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

   Slavonic occupation.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.

   ----------MACEDONIA: End----------

MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

      See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.

MACEDONIAN WARS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACERATA, Battle of (1815).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.

McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

MACHICUIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

MACHINE, Political.

      See STALWARTS.

MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.

      See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.

   ----------MACKINAW: Start--------

MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):
   Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MACKINAW:
   Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.

      See COUREURS DE BOIS.

MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.
   Captured by the Indians.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

   ----------MACKINAW: End--------

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.

McLEOD CASE, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

MacMAHON, Marshal,
   President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.

MACON, Fort, Capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);
      and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.

MACUSHI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.
   French claims and demands enforced by war.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.

   In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,
   "seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,
   but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the
   difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for
   this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful
   island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on
   which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."

      _A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest,
      book 1, chapter 1._

MADISON, James,
   and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.

MADRAS: A. D. 1640.
   The founding of the city.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French.
   Restored to England.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

   ----------MADRID: Start--------

MADRID: A. D. 1560.
   Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.
   Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants
   of the crown.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.
   Occupied by the French.
   Popular insurrection.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.
   Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).
   Recovery by the French.
   Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1812.
   Evacuation by the French.
   Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

MADRID: A. D. 1823.
   Again occupied by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

{2066}

MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

   ----------MADRID: End--------

MÆATÆ, The.

   A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in
   Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to
   "the wall."

MÆOTIS PALUS,
PALUS MÆOTIS.

   The ancient Greek name of the body of
   water now called the Sea of Azov.

   ----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.
   Spanish siege, capture and massacre.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.
   Siege and capture by the Dutch.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.
   Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.
   Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.
   Restored to Holland.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

   ----------MAESTRICHT: End--------

MAFRIAN.

      See JACOBITE CHURCH.

MAGADHA, The kingdom of.

      See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.

MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.
   Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre
   by the troops of Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

MAGELLAN, Voyage of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MAGESÆTAS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

MAGIANS.
MAGI.

   The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion
   of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed
   among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were
   called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called
   Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the
   inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of
   Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western
   writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5)._

   "The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long
   subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or
   caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come
   to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted
   by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction
   of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage
   holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore
   the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan
   Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 28._

   "To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by
   the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was
   commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and
   Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet
   Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King
   Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the
   Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may
   distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at
   the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,
   foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous
   priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.
   In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi
   (Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')
   came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child
   Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the
   Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."

      _M. Haug,
      Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

MAGNA CARTA.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

MAGNA GRÆCIA.

   "It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in
   the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern
   Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory
   the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well
   deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the
   greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole
   peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the
   Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels
   occupying the interior had become hellenised, or
   semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common
   subjects of these great cities."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

   On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia

      See SAMNITES.

MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D, 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MAGNATÆ, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MAGNESIA.

   The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The
   Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became
   subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter
   came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

   Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be
   colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south
   side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river
   Harmus.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 13._

MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,
   A. D. 1042-1047.

   Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.

   Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.

   Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.

   Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;
   and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.

   Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.

   Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.

   Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.

   Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.

{2067}

MAGYARS, The.

   See HUNGARIANS.

MAHARAJA.

      See RAJA.

MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.

MAHDI, The.

   "The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but
   not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five
   prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,
   Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his
   predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation
   than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old
   dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by
   Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and
   auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal
   meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally
   assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with
   European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his
   fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'
   led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which
   may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;
   but used as a proper name it indicates him who is
   'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'
   who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall
   only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,
   but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …
   The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout
   the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course
   among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of
   the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in
   review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic
   stage; for their name is Legion."

      _J. Darmesteter,
      The Mahdi, Past and Present,
      chapters 1-2. _

      See, also,
      ISLAM; ALMOHADES;
      and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

MAHDIYA:
   Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,
   and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.

   Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.

   Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.

   Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

   ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
   The Mission of the Prophet.

   Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the
   name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of
   August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca
   and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].
   To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the
   Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native
   city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of
   importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose
   mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his
   fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of
   God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith
   of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly
   and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good
   wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to
   recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the
   brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,
   declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate
   and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the
   daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet
   keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,
   hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and
   the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and
   better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims
   no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for
   simple toleration, for free permission to win men by
   persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his
   hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with
   lust."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 2._

   After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private
   circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters
   of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had
   gained but a small following, while the opposition to his
   doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.
   620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a
   company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.
   Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their
   neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough
   in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his
   persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,
   famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of
   Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a
   general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from
   Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.
   Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with
   their families until the last, escaped the rage of the
   Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment
   for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their
   departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most
   accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This
   is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet
   from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though
   referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …
   is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to
   Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence
   called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have
   seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of
   Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months
   before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became
   an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of
   Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet
   found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his
   flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had
   rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks
   were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered
   with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or
   Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of
   Islam achieved.
{2068}
   The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From
   this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and
   assumed a political as well as a religious character. His
   authority was established at Medina and his influence spread
   among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than
   temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,
   January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years
   later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the
   Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter
   of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and
   recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege
   failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely
   storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a
   treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended
   hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his
   followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.
   The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,
   629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city
   and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of
   Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of
   peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,
   and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu
   Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of
   Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were
   thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of
   the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long
   time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most
   obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the
   Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their
   kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important
   battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was
   afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.
   632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and
   his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already
   encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle
   fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Life of Mahomet._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50._

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapters 3-9._

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      chapters 6-39._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 1, chapters 1-3._

      See, also,
      ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
   Abu Bekr.
   Omar.
   The founding of the Caliphate.
   Conquest of Syria.

   The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet
   had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he
   instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.
   His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the
   lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely
   born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs
   were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened
   preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the
   venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly
   but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern
   soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this
   time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced
   beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of
   conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some
   rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he
   made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and
   ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With
   bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two
   dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade
   the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of
   the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or
   Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to
   the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One
   of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the
   eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity
   with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens
   were justified by the semblance of a national right." The
   strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery
   of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and
   embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced
   on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they
   had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to
   its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the
   south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the
   Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but
   470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken
   after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the
   siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and
   stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which
   poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with
   its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half
   restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,
   and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at
   his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,
   becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)
   was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa
   surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive
   battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or
   Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The
   Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were
   overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of
   Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the
   Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of
   Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the
   caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and
   the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the
   latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited
   by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which
   had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and
   of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding
   its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than
   that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in
   the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of
   Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed
   to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in
   person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.
   Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the
   long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and
   entering Jerusalem on foot.
{2069}
   After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria
   complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and
   Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was
   abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom
   for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw
   Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years
   before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to
   new fields, east, northwards, and west.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
     chapter 51._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and His Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 3-23._

      _S. Ockley,
      History of the Saracens: Abubeker._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 2, 11, 19-21._

      See, also,
      JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;
      and TYRE: A. D. 638.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
   Conquest of Persia.

   During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the
   Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under
   command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of
   its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the
   Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a
   small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under
   Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the
   northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the
   Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part
   being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the
   great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were
   speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled
   being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians
   regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.
   In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,
   the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year
   found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of
   Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more
   than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two
   years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad
   Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his
   forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below
   the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of
   Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into
   Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.
   The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so
   precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his
   hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and
   Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to
   the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the
   close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved
   over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to
   Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king
   Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic
   effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.
   He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which
   the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of
   Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian
   power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying
   continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious
   existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to
   A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to
   pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made
   no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after
   province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,
   in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last
   scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.
   … The order of conquest seems to have been the following:
   Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,
   and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,
   Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and
   Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26, and foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 25-34._

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 10-18, 25-26._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.
   Conquest of Egypt.

   "It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.
   D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating
   consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His
   army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by
   the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.
   Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of
   his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had
   already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy
   reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,
   after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing
   array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of
   renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the
   garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and
   so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the
   easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this
   branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper
   Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient
   city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest
   of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some
   goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the
   Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox
   Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms
   after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.
   "Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach
   it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the
   outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the
   way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder
   his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of
   the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land
   side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an
   obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to
   succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the
   siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was
   supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria
   capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,
   ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,
   it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at
   Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away
   from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So
   he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the
   Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement
   which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress
   was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their
   being surprised and cut off.
{2070}
   The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around
   them grew up a military station, called from its origin
   Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the
   capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'
   or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.
   908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of
   conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru
   refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,
   confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his
   wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As
   elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become
   proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground
   whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of
   Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a
   rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had
   been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,
   with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his
   conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established
   himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in
   the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was
   made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy
   with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city
   insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with
   the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of
   Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the
   city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought
   outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy
   town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer
   siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.
   … The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,
   fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of
   the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria
   ceased to be the capital of Egypt."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 24, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 24 and 35._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 644.
   Assassination of Caliph Omar.

   The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent
   one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who
   worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the
   Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being
   overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him.
   Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that
   the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his
   bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following
   day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual,
   went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque.
   He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when
   the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his
   back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred
   floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of
   horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman
   strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness
   of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally
   turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead.
   Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to
   the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this
   parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city,
   Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to
   make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their
   faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily
   they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully
   fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O
   Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me,
   I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus
   perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever
   to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom
   any country and any creed might be proud."

      _J. J. Pool,
      Studies in Mohammedanism,
      pages 58-59._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.
   Conquest of northern Africa.

   "While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa
   [northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It
   was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not
   subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for
   eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa
   contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to
   each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a
   Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in
   every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was
   orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict
   provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be
   alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople
   for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the
   inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many
   of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against
   the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to
   the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances
   of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate
   fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity
   gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their
   votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their
   unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their
   religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs.
   Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and
   the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in
   Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible
   name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

   "In their climate and government, their diet and habitation,
   the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert.
   With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name,
   and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives
   was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic
   the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy
   plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000
   tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and
   scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant
   that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous
   idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white'
   Africans."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

   "By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman
   Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to
   subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia
   or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the
   African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs
   pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they
   crossed into Spain in 710."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      page 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Arabs,
      part 1, chapters 1-3._

      See, also,
      CARTHAGE: A. D. 698;
      and MOROCCO.

{2071}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
   Accession of the Omeyyads.

   Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two
   years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was
   raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was
   murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had
   been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was
   troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which
   ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then
   that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted
   to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem
   world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry
   were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable,
   "Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of
   the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was
   now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian,
   so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy
   and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man
   who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their
   heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman;
   Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the
   grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received
   a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the
   Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old
   companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of
   the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil
   war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha
   gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their
   headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in
   a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel,
   because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel
   became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the
   success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with
   Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of
   Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted
   that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil
   war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son,
   Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained
   away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed
   Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or
   Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of
   Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not
   at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was
   now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an
   hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon
   assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The
   Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen;
   the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good
   as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly
   despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old.
   The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and
   directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of
   the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered
   splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary
   cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph,
   Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy
   cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down
   by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however
   did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The
   partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable
   sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to
   be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of
   valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred
   descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of
   the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his
   house."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 31-46._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam Under the Arabs,
      part 3._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 9-11._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.
   The Tragedy at Kerbela.

   When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had
   been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by
   Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly
   proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this
   poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to
   the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the
   lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of
   'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of
   the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at
   Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his
   claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at
   the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate
   to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection
   which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous
   and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out
   with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and
   an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew
   nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been
   suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that
   the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And
   now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who
   surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of
   Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river.
   … A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his
   followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the
   Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the
   women and children."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 7._

   "The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is
   still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is
   commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal
   day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of
   Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala
   decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan
   kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.
   … The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a
   religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram
   Festival.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 49, with foot-note._

      See, also, ISLAM.

{2072}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 668-675.
   First repulse from Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
   Subjugation of the Turks.

   "After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided
   the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow
   boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the
   governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and
   one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish
   queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the
   hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as
   well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the
   inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver,
   declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant.
   While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan
   banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between
   the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by
   the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the
   caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was
   imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken;
   the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch
   [mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes
   were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China
   solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their
   industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the
   ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the
   advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and
   cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the
   invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were
   rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the
   North."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 3._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

------------------------------------
[Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting
the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]

SEVENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
      Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
      Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]

608.
      Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the Avars.

614.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
      capture of Damascus.

615.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
      removal of the supposed True Cross.

616.
      First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
      Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
      The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
      Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

626.
      Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

627.
      Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
      Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
      Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
      from the Persians, by Heraclius.

630.
      Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

632.
      Death of Mahomet;
      Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English
      in the battle of the Heavenfield.

636.
      Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
      retreat of the Romans.

637.
      Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
      their victories in Persia.

639.
      Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

640.
      Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems;
      invasion of Egypt by Amru.

641.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
      three rival emperors;
      accession of Constans II.
      Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
      by the Mahometans;
      end of the Sassanian kingdom;
      capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]
      founding of Cairo.

643.
      Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

644.
      Assassination of Omar;
      Othman chosen caliph.

646.
      Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

648.
      Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

649.
      Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

650.
      Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date.]

652.
      Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

653.
      Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
      by the Emperor Constans II.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

657.
      Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

658.
      Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
      Egypt in revolt.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

663.
      Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

670.
      The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date.]

673.
      First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
      Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).

677.
      The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
      treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

687.
      Battle of Testri;
      victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

695.
      Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

696.
      Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

697.
      Election of the first Doge of Venice.

698.
      Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date]


EIGHTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
704.
      Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

705.
      Accession of the Caliph Welid.

709.
      Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

712.
      Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.
      Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
      his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

719.
      Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

721.
      Siege of Toulouse;
      defeat of the Moslems.

725.
      Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

726.
      Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
      tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.
      Death of Pope Gregory II.;
      election of Gregory III.;
      last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.
      Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
      under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
      Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
      edict against the Iconoclasts.

733.
      Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

735.
      Birth of Alcuin (died 804).

740.
      Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
      accession of Constantine V.

741.
      Death of Charles Martel.
      Death of Pope Gregory III.;
      election of Zacharias.

742.
      Birth of Charlemagne (died 814).

744.
      Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
      their forced baptism.
      Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.
      The Plague in Constantinople.
      Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

750.
      Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and rise of the Abbassides.

751.
      Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

752.
      End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
      assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pope Zacharias;
      election of Stephen II.

754.
      First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
      Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.
      Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
      his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

756.
      Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

757.
      Death of Pope Stephen II.;
      election of Paul I.

758.
      Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

759.
      Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
      Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.
      Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
      [Uncertain date.]

767.
      Death of Pope Paul I.;
      usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

768.
      Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pippin;
      accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
      Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
      election of Pope Stephen III.

771.
      Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne sole king of the Franks.

772.
      Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
      Death of Pope Stephen III.;
      election of Hadrian I.

774.
      Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
      his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]

775.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
      accession of Leo IV.

778.
      Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
      the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

780.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
      accession of Constantine VI.;
      regency of Irene.

781.
      Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate kingdoms by Charlemagne.

785.
      Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
      submission of Wittikind.

786.
      Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

787.
      Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).
      First incursions of the Danes in England.

788.
      Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
      Death of Abderrahman.

790.
      Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date.]

791.
      Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

794.
      Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

795.
      Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
      election of Leo III.

797.
      Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor
      Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.
      Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
      revival of the Empire.
      Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
      the first king of all the English.

-------------------------------------


MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
   The repulse from Gaul.

   "The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed
   'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of
   Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth,
   and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first
   step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by
   sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to
   extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and
   Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the
   Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he
   proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to
   the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of
   Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite
   his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.'
   This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors
   of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of
   the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in
   Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the
   mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and
   settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year
   they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over
   Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the
   country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke
   of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a
   decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his
   retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the
   passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat
   al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the
   characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs
   were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other
   fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years,
   spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to
   resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725).
   Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the
   city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When,
   … at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the
   hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman
   heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His
   successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general,
   energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered
   into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul.
   For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed
   with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls
   and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on
   Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting
   the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an
   irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and
   sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the
   unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his
   enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great
   palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish
   kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king
   in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but
   for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl
   and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against
   the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed
   never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman
   clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all
   the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic
   palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of
   western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with
   plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the
   southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of
   the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was
   still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and
   the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin
   of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the
   richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which
   the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned
   for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious
   sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered
   the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and
   Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and
   the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on
   those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and
   Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to
   grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. …
{2075}
   Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of
   both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of
   October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given.
   With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab
   horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep
   columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a
   wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice,
   the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.'
   All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks
   held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam
   pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the
   latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear.
   Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were
   broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an
   end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms,
   expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the
   fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the
   brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no
   courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but
   their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe
   was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of
   Christian civilization."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 14._

   The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was
   enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted
   from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs,
   subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in
   the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah
   from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it
   greedily divided among the Franks."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. S. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 7._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.
   Omeyyads and Abbassides.
   The dividing of the Caliphate.

   The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela
   kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the
   hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first
   ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as
   a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir,
   who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali,
   soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen
   years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a
   great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given
   over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a
   siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was
   destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought
   under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the
   caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon
   afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose
   reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of
   his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the
   wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The
   arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning
   cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every
   useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for
   the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the
   glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs
   both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is
   the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads
   as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not
   forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside
   inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted
   six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious
   basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants
   of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply
   secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of
   canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the
   provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these
   agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right;
   that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and
   his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or
   leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of
   the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the
   other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas,
   the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in
   the background, and watching their opportunity. They now
   vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to
   urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through
   male representatives, they took precedence over the direct
   descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through
   Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira,
   Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as
   the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by
   the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu
   Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of
   those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the
   banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of
   certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad
   army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to
   Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he
   had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5,
   A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated
   over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after
   ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared
   in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of
   the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had
   never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's
   family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the
   Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al
   Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and
   perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of
   Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity
   of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory
   or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged
   as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake
   of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and,
   west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent;
   Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings
   in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away
   from the central government, established kingdoms of their
   own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the
   Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate
   pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and
   significance."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 12-14._

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam Under the Arabs,
      part 3._

{2076}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 717-718.
   Second repulse from Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
   Final expulsion from southern Gaul.

   During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin
   the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the
   Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to
   obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country,
   into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who
   had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years,
   "opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little
   fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond,
   who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under
   an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds,
   and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the
   first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away
   by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with
   other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up
   and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul.
   "His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had
   steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after
   a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then
   through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were
   inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers.
   They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the
   gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and
   Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a
   little while the entire Arab population was driven out of
   Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large
   and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of
   Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the
   Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The
   Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their
   long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 15._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 756-1031.
   The Omeyyad caliphs of Cordova.

   When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of
   Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended
   by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched
   members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing
   ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from
   destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he
   found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found
   partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as
   sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of
   the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of
   the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman]
   the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova,
   who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after
   their house had been exterminated in their original
   possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into
   Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The
   authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and
   governors rose and fell with very little reference to their
   distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have
   been the result, not so much of any blind preference of
   Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed
   the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at
   that early period of Mahometan history an independent
   Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the
   guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is
   more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every
   sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of
   Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration
   westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the
   highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of
   their house and in the abundance of able princes which it
   produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they
   rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. …
   The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was
   during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir
   Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to
   its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad
   dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil
   wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire
   was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the
   Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam
   is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lectures 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 6, chapter 5;
      book 7, chapters 1-4;
      book 8, chapter 1._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.
   The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

   "The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the
   pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally
   distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced
   the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to
   be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The
   Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of
   Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two
   houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the
   seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the
   head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore
   selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on
   the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain,
   which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well
   suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought
   commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian
   Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates,
   which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is
   reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and
   the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying
   'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the
   importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in
   extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two
   successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and
   the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the
   other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of
   art for its adornment."

      _E. H. Palmer,
      Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
      chapter 2._

   "Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The
   City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world,
   the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat
   of learning."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

{2077}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.
   Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.

   "It was not until nearly the close of the first century after
   the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the
   regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard
   fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed
   to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large
   number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power
   of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. …
   The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was
   the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal
   power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."

      _R. D. Osborn,
      Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
      part 3, chapter 1._

   "The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands
   of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains
   became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised
   their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had
   been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner,
   when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at
   the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon
   the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the
   Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of
   their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the
   nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes
   formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his
   name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public
   prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some
   Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only
   as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the
   fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it
   had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph,
   Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire
   some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that
   the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear
   rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically
   his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice
   was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never
   was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no
   priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the
   tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the
   hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the
   southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers,
   succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command
   over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what
   is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides,
   or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace
   the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and
   abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of
   the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over
   their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on
   the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any
   violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in
   Mansúr's seat."

      _T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      chapter 3._

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 827-878.
   Conquest of Sicily.

      See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 840-890.
   The Saracens in southern Italy.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.
   The Fatimite caliphs.

   "Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre
   of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the
   Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that
   country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad
   for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the
   ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its
   western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali
   [the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or
   Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent
   from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter,
   Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam,
   Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him,
   Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a
   large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to
   make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be
   strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians,
   who seem to have made something very like a deity of their
   hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the
   Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted
   in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were
   bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of
   Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed
   with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if
   he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon
   obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa,
   a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that
   country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour
   of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the
   Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name,
   obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites
   and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with
   great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence
   thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the
   city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a
   tributary province, became again, as in the days of its
   Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The
   claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached
   throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly
   extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia.
   Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of
   Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many
   creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian
   Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the
   Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous
   Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but
   the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long
   schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad.
   Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside
   Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on
   the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his
   Fatimite rival."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Lane-Poole,
      The Mohammadan Dynasties,
      pages 70-73._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapters 8 and 10._

      See, also,
      JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

{2078}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 962-1187.
   The Ghaznavide empire.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290;
      and TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 964-976.
   Losses in Syria and Cilicia.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025;
      also, ANTIOCH, A. D. 969.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1004-1160.
   The Seljuk Conquests.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063 to 1092-1160.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.
   Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

      See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1031-1086.
   Fragmentary kingdoms in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1060-1090.
   The loss of Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1086-1147.
   The empire of the Almoravides.

      See ALMORAVIDES.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1146-1232.
   The empire of the Almohades.

      See ALMOHADES;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1240-1453.
   Conquests of the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;
      1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.
   Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.

      See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.
   Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460; and 1476-1492.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1519-1605.
   The Mogul conquest of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

   ----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: End----------

MAHOMETAN ERA.

      See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

   ----------MAHRATTAS: Start--------

MAHRATTAS: 17th Century.
   Origin and growth of power.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.
   Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.
   Great defeat at Panniput.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1781-1819.
   Wars with the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

   ----------MAHRATTAS: End--------

MAID OF NORWAY.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

MAID OF ORLEANS, The Mission of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

MAIDA, Battle of (1806).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

MAILLOTINS, Insurrection of the,

      See PARIS: A. D. 1381.

   ----------MAINE: Start--------

MAINE:
   The Name.

   "Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the
   territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to
   Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry.
   But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection,
   volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did
   not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the
   coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not
   unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on
   the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part
   of it."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 337; foot-note._

MAINE:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MAINE:
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also, CANADA: THE NAMES.

MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The Popham colony on the Kennebec.
   Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.

   The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for
   the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was
   divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the
   London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was
   assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North
   Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth
   Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of
   territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

   The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch
   was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham,
   brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the
   earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were
   original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir
   John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England,
   and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the
   undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and
   liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former
   hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth
   with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's
   Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as
   interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they
   reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec,
   in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize
   their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to
   a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it
   had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should
   live. George Popham had been constituted their President,
   Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells,
   and built huts. More than half of the number became
   discouraged, and returned with the ships to England.
   Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be
   very long and severe. … When the President sickened and
   died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with
   supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham,
   and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the
   presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in
   England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses
   thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise.
   All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of
   the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they
   had built, and some furs and other products of the country.
   Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the
   conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was
   branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold,
   and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the
   son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give
   it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in
   hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was
   necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already
   undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely
   commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been
   among the most active of the original promotors of the
   Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man
   despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a
   colony."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
     History of New England,
     volume 1, chapter 2._

     ALSO IN:
     _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
     Popular History of the United States,
     chapter 12, volume 1._

     _R. K. Sewall,
     Ancient Dominions of Maine,
     chapter 3._

{2079}

MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.
   Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
   First colonies planted.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Ligonia, or Plow Patent, and other grants.

   "The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by
   six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the
   Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of
   Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as
   possible in the projects of colonization to which he was
   himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for
   small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40
   miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The
   establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had
   been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be
   an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the
   'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent
   out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to
   Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid
   patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where
   already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent
   community for the next forty years."

      _R. Hildreth,
     History of the United States,
     chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial
   dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly
   but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten
   husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with
   a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not
   please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly
   dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later
   day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made
   a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Thornton,
      Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5)._

MAINE: A. D. 1639.
   A Palatine principality.
   The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

   "In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting
   Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by
   the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on
   the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political
   privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those
   enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to
   legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province,
   and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of
   England. His political rights were to be subject to the
   control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his
   territorial rights were to be independent and complete in
   themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of
   the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were
   a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that
   of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all
   English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary
   incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to
   create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful
   in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier
   amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little
   German court of the last century could the forms of government
   and the realities of life have been more at variance. To
   conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called
   into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed
   for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the
   absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated
   thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate
   machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical
   purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system
   which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges
   tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts
   with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled
   out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of
   putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by
   the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

   "The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which
   Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the
   other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and
   it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General
   Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn
   protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long
   exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and
   its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to
   be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve
   Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all
   to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two
   thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The
   forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied
   from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was
   acted more than ten years."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._

MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.
   Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.
   The claims of Massachusetts made good.

   "In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons
   grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old
   grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George
   Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about
   that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.
   Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of
   jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;
   and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the
   decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that
   they could not decide the matter. But the next year the
   Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in
   favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,
   at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him
   died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,
   Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands
   lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,
   took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her
   jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her
   authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the
   Restoration (1660).
{2080}
   Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges
   claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was
   Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee
   of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King
   to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.
   In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded
   through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they
   appointed various officers without the concurrence of
   Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted
   with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts
   sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and
   re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which
   the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the
   Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the
   Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed
   by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set
   at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims
   from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. K. Sewall,
      Ancient Dominions of Maine,
      chapters 3-4._

      _W. D. Williamson,
      History of Maine,
      volume 1, chapters 6-21._

MAINE: A. D. 1664.
   The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted
   to the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MAINE: A. D. 1675.
   Outbreak of the Tarentines.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

MAINE: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.
   Indian cruelties.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MAINE: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed Indian war.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

MAINE: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MAINE: A. D. 1814.
   Occupied in large part and held by the English.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

MAINE: A. D. 1820.
   Separation from Massachusetts.
   Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and
   admission into the Union.

   "Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were
   first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816,
   and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This
   convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was
   not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into
   a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into
   the American Union."

      _G. L. Austin,
      History of Massachusetts,
      page 408._

   "In the division of the property all the real estate in
   Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be
   equally divided between the two, share and share alike. …
   The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both
   under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates
   of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature,
   without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into
   a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate.
   … Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one
   branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when,
   to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month
   [March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to
   be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United
   States."

      _W. D. Williamson,
      History of Maine,
      volume 2, chapter 27._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MAINE: A. D. 1842.
   Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,
   by the Ashburton Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

   ----------MAINE: End----------

MAIWAND, English disaster at (1880).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAJESTAS, The Law of.

   "The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire
   … was the legal protection thrown round the person of the
   chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety
   of the community became an attack on its glorified
   representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first
   legal enactment which received this title, half a century
   before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for
   the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage
   dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason
   to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as
   Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. …
   But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue
   Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the
   purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of
   the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of
   another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. …
   [After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between
   Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of
   Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to
   measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 44._

MAJORCA:
   Conquest by King James of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

MAJORIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 457-461.

MAJUBA HILL, Battle of (1881).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

   ----------MALAGA: Start--------

MALAGA: A. D. 1036-1055.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MALAGA: A. D. 1487.
   Siege and capture from the Moors by the Christians.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

   ----------MALAGA: End--------

MALAKHOFF, The storming of the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

MALAMOCCO.
   The second capital of the Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810; and 452.

MALATESTA FAMILY, The.

   "No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of
   the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of
   the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision
   of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of
   Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni
   Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known
   not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and
   Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to
   all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The
   history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment
   under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire
   in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the
   Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the
   vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.
{2081}
   Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,
   Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities
   like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,
   inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or
   their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the
   succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of
   force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,
   alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in
   Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti
   and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius
   for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to
   the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race
   of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other
   house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those
   qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought
   indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is
   concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo
   Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the
   perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,
   he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,
   adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius
   II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after
   suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in
   1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser
   of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent
   before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to
   his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might
   be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,
   interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the
   Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of
   Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the
   command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,
   and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Sketches in Italy and Greece,
      pages 217-220._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages,
      pages 274-299._

MALAYAN RACE, The.

   Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan'
   or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than
   any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however,
   the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian
   analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as
   a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some
   ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has
   been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously
   on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance
   nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe;
   everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we
   must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must
   have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a
   monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present
   into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the
   eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion
   about the original identity of these, but we may consider it
   now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional
   evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also
   excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as
   settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came
   from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of
   Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the
   whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra
   and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than
   1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or
   about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The
   relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has
   not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the
   Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of
   southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however,
   was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The
   purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and
   Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture
   among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the
   Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so
   remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is
   an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not
   approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays
   are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but
   unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and
   the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or
   affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring
   navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer,
   and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far
   and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of
   extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized
   Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood,
   number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half
   millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of
   fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the
   recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably
   established various colonies in southern India. The natives at
   Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan
   aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and
   Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the
   farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that
   they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in
   their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages
   have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian
   traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their
   ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these
   traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route
   they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates
   when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their
   ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island
   of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they
   encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the
   interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they
   passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and
   Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take
   possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its
   south. These two islands formed a second center of
   distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New
   Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in
   their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders
   migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the
   population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter
   island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western
   Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      Races and Peoples,
      lecture 8, section. 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Wallace,
      The Malay Archipelago,
      chapter 40._

      _R. Brown,
      The Races of Mankind,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

{2082}

MALCOLM III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1057-1093.

   Malcolm IV., King of Scotland, 1153-1165.

MALDON, Battle of.

   Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of
   Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the
   heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the
   subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in
   Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of
   battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.

MALEK SHAH, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1073-1092.

MALIANS, The.

   One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian
   Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a
   warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians,
   before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 2._

MALIGNANTS.

   "About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first
   born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof
   being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or
   'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the
   name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a
   note of disgrace on those of the king's party."

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 11, section 4 (volume 3)._

MALINES: Taken by Marlborough and the Allies (1706).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

MALLUM.
MALL.
MALLBERG.

   "The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of
   which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or
   commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various
   detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a
   sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as
   occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly
   of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with
   him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning
   also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the
   Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars
   on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the
   mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention.
   Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 8._

   "The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called
   'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where
   the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield
   of office, without which he might not hold Court."

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

      See, also.
      PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

MALMÖ, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MALO-JOROSLAVETZ, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D.1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

MALPLAQUET, Battle of (1709).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

   ----------MALTA: Start--------

MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.
   Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.
   Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

MALTA: A. D. 1551.
   Unsuccessful attack by the Turks.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

MALTA: A. D. 1798.
   Seizure and occupation by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.
   Surrender to an English fleet.
   Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

MALTA: A. D. 1814.
   Ceded to England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

   ----------MALTA: End--------

MALTA, Knights of.

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights
   of Rhodes:

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

MALVERN CHASE.

   An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between
   Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England._

MALVERN HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

MAMACONAS.

      See YANACONAS.

MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

MAMELUKES OF EGYPT;
   their rise;
   their sovereignty;
   their destruction.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517; and 1803-1811.

MAMELUKES OF GENEVA, The.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

MAMERTINE PRISON, The.

   "Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline
   Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The
   original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius,
   as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the
   middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which
   it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being
   built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god
   Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way
   of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this
   prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of
   hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is
   semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date,
   when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To
   these chambers there was no entrance except by a small
   aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper
   floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would
   appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of
   the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part
   of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum
   because it was added by Servius Tullius."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 93._

{2083}

   "The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons
   … is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant
   as originally constructed."

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      chapter 4._

   "Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by
   Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest
   of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to
   death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world
   as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 3. _

MAMERTINES OF MESSENE, The.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MAMUN, AL, Caliph, A. D. 813-833.

MAN, Kingdom of.

      See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

MANAOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

   ----------MANASSAS: Start--------

MANASSAS: A. D. 1861 (July).
   First battle (Bull Run).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Confederate evacuation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (August).
   Stonewall Jackson's Raid.
   The Second Battle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

   ----------MANASSAS: End--------

   ----------MANCHESTER: Start--------

MANCHESTER:
   Origin.

      See MANCUNIUM.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819.
   The march of the Blanketeers,
   and the "Massacre of Peterloo."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1838-1839.
   Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The Cotton Famine.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1894.
   Opening of the Ship Canal.

   A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making
   the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of
   January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.

   ----------MANCHESTER: End--------

MANCHU TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

      See CHINA: A.D. 1294-1882.

MANCUNIUM.

   A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern
   city of Manchester.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

MANDANS,
MANDANES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MANDATA, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

MANDUBII, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern
   French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was
   Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

MANETHO, List of.

   "Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of
   the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the
   deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a
   value which increases the more it is compared with the
   original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated
   with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of
   dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous.
   Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an
   authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of
   Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the
   Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a
   history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved
   in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this
   history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only,
   with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of
   his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some
   chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into
   dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned
   successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      EGYPT: ITS HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY.

   ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: Start--------

MANHATTAN ISLAND:
   Its aboriginal People and name.

   "The earliest notice we have of the island which is now
   adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in
   Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in
   reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his
   return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on
   this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans,
   and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians
   and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions
   of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and
   Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the
   river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen
   commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities
   with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards
   the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards
   to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New
   York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when
   correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not
   only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but
   it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr.
   Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been
   fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians
   called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the
   Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had
   heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is
   convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was
   a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the
   country where New York now is. York Island is called by the
   Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink.
   The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word
   for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as
   his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."

      _J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, pages 223-224._

      ALSO IN:
      _Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MANHATTAN ISLAND: A. D. 1613.
   First settlements.
   Argall's visit.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

   ----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: End--------

{2084}

MANICHEANS, The.

   "A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call
   him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under
   Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a
   mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the
   various systems of belief which he found established in
   Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism
   of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and
   even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to
   Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's
   orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a
   time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new
   creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious
   systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was
   superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the
   Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and
   demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of
   Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him
   his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete
   promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and
   claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by
   pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New
   Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by
   the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward
   very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to
   carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is
   said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king],
   who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he
   found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were,
   his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at
   any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a
   foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was
   pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort
   of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an
   improvement on Zoroastrianism."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

   First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the
   Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they
   spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in
   the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed
   that the heresy became extinct.

      _J. L. Mosheim,
      Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century,
      lectures 39-55._

      See, also, PAULICIANS.

MANIFESTATION, The Aragonese process of.

      See CORTES. THE EARLY SPANISH.

MANILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

MANIMI, The.

      See LYGIANS.

MANIN, Daniel, and the struggle for Venetian independence.

      See ITALY: A. D.1848-1849.

MANIOTO,
MAYNO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MANIPULI.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

MANITOBA.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

MANNAHOACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

   ----------MANNHEIM: Start--------

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1622.
   Capture by Tilly.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1689.
   Destroyed by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1799.
   Capture by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

   ----------MANNHEIM: End--------

MANOA, The fabled city of.

      See EL DORADO.

MANORS.

   "The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which
   it was given existed, in its essential character, long before
   the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did,
   but neither the one nor the other was created by this change.
   The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac
   and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their
   free neighbours, were identical with the manorial
   jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as
   Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient
   township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial
   rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he
   was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient
   gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other
   local business transacted, and a court customary in which the
   business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose
   lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or
   who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms
   were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction,
   cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the
   hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going
   to the court-leet of the hundred."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9, section 98,
      and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1)._

   "From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same
   agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of
   England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases
   in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to
   the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom
   from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of
   rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent,
   hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more
   mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or
   abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each
   township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in
   number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a
   series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide,
   four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated
   by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each
   series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a
   headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by
   custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as
   a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are
   allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in
   the township, a very common holding being that known as a
   virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr.
   Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected
   this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the
   system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so
   many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of
   the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing
   the plough, though this would vary with the character of the
   soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land
   in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants,
   socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or
   Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and
   the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or
   so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing
   the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to
   supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that
   the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain,
   dominicum, or demesne."

      _T. E. Scrutton,
      Commons and Common Fields,
      chapter 1._

{2085}

   Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the
   community from which it rose there are divergent views much
   discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current
   fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory
   and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary
   association, a simple unit within which there were households
   or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority,
   but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each
   was subject only to the customs and usages of the community
   and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a
   judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though
   cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All
   offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time
   sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was
   afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the
   first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by
   the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by
   usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection
   and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first
   Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of
   subjection to himself, and received from them, though free,
   dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The
   main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the
   evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen
   which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory.
   … While the free village community was under fire at home as
   well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly
   opposite character, with the formula of the community in
   villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment
   divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more
   satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the
   origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched
   the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of
   the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the
   omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected
   with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with
   one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an
   unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British
   foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while
   Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon
   overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select;
   all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all
   conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence
   to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the
   student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with
   known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their
   development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently
   elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early
   historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here
   quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is
   the composite character of the tribal and village community,
   and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain
   after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different
   results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a
   remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory.
   He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military
   organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many
   respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement
   Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles
   of military regiment there is none so necessary or so
   elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and
   such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing
   obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English
   settlements were originally founded, that each several
   settlement was under a military leader, and that this military
   leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor
   Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion
   contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds'
   represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host,
   and that the military occupation preceded the civil
   organization, the latter falling into the mould which the
   former had prepared. According to this the manorial
   organization was based upon a composite military foundation,
   the rank and file composing the one element, the village
   community; the captain or military leader composing the other,
   settled with suitable provision by the side of his company;
   the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give
   the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means
   whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the
   attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning
   we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be
   raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his
   composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively
   military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the
   'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the
   'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain
   that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred,
   the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet
   when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we
   meet with many difficulties."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      pages 7-51._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Communities,
      chapter 2, section 12._

      _Sir H. Maine,
      Village Communities,
      lecture 5._

MANSFIELD, OR
SABINE CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

MANSOURAH, Battle of (1250).

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

MANSUR, Al, Caliph, A. D. 754-775.

   ----------MANTINEA: Start--------

MANTINEA.

   "Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to
   pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C.
   743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced
   out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done
   at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date
   entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in
   its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city
   and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had
   openly opposed Sparta."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

MANTINEA: B. C. 418.
   Battle.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

{2086}

MANTINEA: B. C. 385.
   Destruction by the Spartans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 385.

MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.
   Restoration of the city.
   Arcadian union and disunion.
   The great battle.
   Victory and death of Epaminondas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371; and 371-362.

MANTINEA: B. C. 222.
   Change of name.

   In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League,
   the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the
   chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan
   garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B.
   C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of
   Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to
   pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled
   city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos,
   which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession
   of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him
   to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On
   his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was
   described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of
   Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of
   Greece."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 62 (volume 8)._

MANTINEA: B. C. 207.
   Defeat of the Lacedæmonians.

   In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were
   defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by
   the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and
   the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third
   great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground.
   Here, in the interval between the two parts of the
   Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after
   her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in
   the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought
   the last great battle of independent Greece."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 8, section 2._

   ----------MANTINEA: End----------

MANTUA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Rise and acquisition of republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MANTUA: A. D. 1077-1115.
   In the dominions of the Countess Matilda.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MANTUA: A. D. 1328-1708.
   The house of Gonzaga.

      See GONZAGA.

MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed
   succession to the duchy.
   Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.
   Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

MANTUA: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

MANTUA: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Siege and reduction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MANTUA: A. D. 1797.
   Ceded by Austria to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

MANTUA: A. D. 1799.
   Siege and capture by Suwarrow.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MANTUA: A. D. 1814.
   Restoration to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

MANTUA: A. D. 1866.

   The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal
   from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new
   kingdom of Italy.

MANU, Laws of.

   "The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law,
   which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint
   or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama,
   another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth
   after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu.
   According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is
   the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is …
   inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the
   collection must have been put together and written down about
   the year 600 [B. C.]."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 5, chapter 6._

   "The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud';
   for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or
   association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the
   country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this
   district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people,
   and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and
   hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose
   Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may
   have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code
   of Manu to have been composed."

      _Mrs. Manning,
      Ancient and Mediæval India,
      volume 1, page 276._

MANUAL TRAINING.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &C.: A. D. 1865-1886.

MANUEL I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.

   Manuel II. (Palæologus),
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1391-1425.

MANX KINGDOM, The.

   The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man,
   by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of
   which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used),
   and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or
   Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the
   island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh
   and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom,
   with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the
   little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after
   various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was
   granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after
   some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher,
   in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of
   Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765
   the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by
   the British government; but its independent form of government
   has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to
   perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of
   Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a
   representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the
   imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it
   is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with
   judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient
   Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the
   crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English
   counties, are called sheadings.

      _S. Walpole,
      The Land of Home Rule._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. I. Jenkinson,
      Guide to Isle of Man._

      _Hall Caine,
      The Little Manx Nation.
      Our Own Country,
      volume 5._

      See
      MONAPIA:
      and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

{2087}

MANZIKERT, Battle of (1071).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

MAONITES, The.

   "We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which,
   in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      introduction, section 4._

MAORIS.
MAORI WAR.

      See NEW ZEALAND: THE ABORIGINES: A. D. 1853-1883;
      also, MALAYAN RACE.

MAPOCHINS, The.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

MAQUAHUITL, The.

   This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards
   found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long,
   and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of
   razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp,
   fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The
   first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon
   blunt."

      _F. S. Clavigero,
      History of Mexico,
      book 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest of America,
      book 10 (volume 2)._

MARACANDA.

   The chief city of the ancient Sogdiani, in Central Asia—now
   Samarcand.

MARAGHA.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MARAIS, OR PLAIN, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

MARANHA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MARANGA, Battle of.

   One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians
   during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the
   Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

MARAPHIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1793 (MARCH-JUNE).

   Assassination by Charlotte Corday.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

MARATA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARATHAS.

      See MAHRATTAS.

MARATHON, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

MARAVEDIS.

      See SPANISH COINS.

MARBURG CONFERENCE, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

MARCEL, Etienne, and the States General of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

MARCELLUS II., Pope, A. D. 1555, April to May.

MARCH.
MARK.

   The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came
   the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer
   charged with the guarding of some March or border district of
   a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the
   five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior
   to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the
   Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having
   settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its
   name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of
   Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district
   formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends.
   Various other European states had the same origin.

      See, also, MARGRAVE.

MARCH CLUB.

      See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER AND THE MARCH.

MARCHFELD OR MARSCHFELD, Battle of the (1278).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

   (1809) (also called the battle of Aspern-Esslingen,
   or of Aspern).

     See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

MARCIAN, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 450-457.

MARCIANAPOLIS.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: Start--------

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI, The.

   "The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on
   the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand
   first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from
   which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour.
   Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon]
   and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them.
   This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is
   completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to
   our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended
   from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit
   even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch
   depend on Roman influence."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter 42._

   "The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people
   before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that
   point indicates nothing but what it etymologically
   signifies—the land or frontier guard."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, foot-note._

      See, also, AGRI DECUMATES.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
   War with Tiberius.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:
   Wars with Marcus Aurelius.

      See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS
      OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

   ----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: End--------

MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

MARDIA, Battle of (A. D. 313).

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

MARDIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians;
   also called Amardians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

      See, also, TAPURIANS.

   ----------MARDYCK: Start--------

MARDYCK: A. D. 1645-1646.
   Thrice taken and retaken by French and Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

MARDYCK: A. D. 1657.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Delivery to the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

   ----------MARDYCK: End--------

MARENGO, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MARFEE, Battle of (1641).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

MARGARET,
   Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;
   Sweden, 1388-1412.

   Margaret (called The Maid of Norway),
   Queen of Scotland, 1286-1290.

   Margaret of Anjou, and the Wars of the Roses.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

   Margaret of Navarre, or Marguerite d'Angouléme,
   and the Reformation in France.

      See PAPACY: A.D. 1521-1535;
      and NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563.

   Margaret of Parma and her Regency in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, and after.

{2088}

MARGHUSH.

      See MARGIANA.

MARGIANA.

   The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab
   (called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by
   the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the
   Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the
   Margiani.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

MARGRAVE.
MARQUIS.

   "This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or
   Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of
   circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th
   century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate
   with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first
   recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his
   'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only
   'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man
   he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing
   watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and
   naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means.
   Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become
   hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence
   have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like,
   of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or
   less mendacious, as most of our titles are."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave
   [margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had
   belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation
   with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was
   marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of
   Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the
   seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to
   England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a
   century of its introduction into England, it was used in so
   unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows
   that it had lost all traces of its original application."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, section 751._

      See MARCH; also, GRAF.

MARGUS, Treaty of.

   A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman
   Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most
   shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the
   savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy
   whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped
   from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to
   him of 700 pounds of gold.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

MARHATTAS.

      See MAHRATTAS.

MARIA,
   Queen of Hungary, A. D. 1399-1437.

   Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.

   Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.

   Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.

   Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and
   Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

MARIA THERESA, The military order of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

MARIANA.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MARIANDYNIANS, The.

      See BITHYNIANS.

MARIANS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARICOPAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARIE ANTOINETTE,
   Imprisonment, trial and execution of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);
      and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

   Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

   Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.

   Marie.

      See, also, MARY.

MARIETTA, OHIO:
   The Settlement and Naming of the town.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MARINUS, Pope.

      See MARTIN.

MARIOLATRY, Rise of.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.

MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

MARITIME PROVINCES.

   The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
   Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred
   to as the Maritime Provinces.

MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MARK.

   A border.

      See MARCH, MARK.

MARK, The.

   "The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in
   its later form, the free village community, has been an
   accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for
   more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the
   writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken
   up by later English writers and given wide currency through
   the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been
   accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this
   side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become
   a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and
   important as has been its work, it is almost universally
   conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be
   the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough
   and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before
   all questions can be answered which this study brings to
   light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this
   subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political
   thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis
   forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern
   thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that
   in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are
   unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which
   they live. The free village community, as it is commonly
   understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history
   is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that
   reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.
{2089}
   But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable
   hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind
   of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was
   wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to
   conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,
   historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought
   tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who
   felt in this interpretation the influence of the German
   writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined
   boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen
   and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of
   families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal
   ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were
   composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support
   and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land
   within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having
   nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,
   until by continual expansion they either federated or
   coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in
   size covered England, internally differing only in minor
   details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark
   had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer
   in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's
   work, there was published the first of the series of volumes
   which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of
   the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were
   built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,
   but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      pages 1-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 1, chapter 2._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 3, section 2._

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MANOR.

MARKLAND.

      See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

MARKS, Spanish.

      See SPANISH COINS.

MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;
   and the fall of the English Whigs.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

   Campaigns.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

   ----------MAROCCO: Start--------

MAROCCO:
   Ancient.

      See MAURETANIA.

MAROCCO:
   The Arab conquest, and since.

   The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa
   (see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in
   698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn
   resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,
   submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a
   facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they
   still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over
   into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of
   Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of
   their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on
   which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the
   Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the
   glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a
   reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the
   libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the
   learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,
   who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the
   score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their
   greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than
   the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and
   allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own
   places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of
   their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The
   intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened
   monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions
   flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the
   general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in
   Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife
   between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth
   century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never
   afterwards appear in the history of the country except under
   the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed
   [11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which
   the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and
   again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th
   century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In
   the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the
   centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the
   declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its
   final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged
   themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of
   Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable
   that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the
   entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King
   Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the
   banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.
   D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,
   and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at
   Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the
   rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of
   civilizing the country, which from that period gradually
   relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years
   the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian
   family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed
   masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the
   earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out
   from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish
   affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by
   the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.
   1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the
   subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the
   Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.
   These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,
   and brought about a great improvement in the position of
   Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in
   effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,
   while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,
   must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme
   power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all
   things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution
   of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …
   European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same
   mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric
   of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,
   whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of
   Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

      _H. E. M. Stutfield,
      El Maghreb,
      chapter 16._

      See, also, BARBARY STATES.

   ----------MAROCCO: End--------

{2090}

MARONITES, The.

      See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

MAROONS.

      See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MARQUIS.

   See MARGRAVE.

MARRANA, The.

   An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a
   channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,
      volume 2, page 50._

MARRANOS.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MARRIAGE, Republican.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARRUCINIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

MARS' HILL.

      See AREOPAGUS.

MARSAGLIA, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

MARSCHFELD.

      See MARCHFELD.

MARSEILLAISE, The.
   Origin of the Song.
   Its introduction into Paris.

   In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which
   overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun
   in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of
   their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as
   volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and
   immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had
   planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

   Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from
   Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.
   "This battalion has been described by every historian as a
   collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a
   great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,
   where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their
   character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown
   that these Marseillais were picked men from the national
   guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained
   the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the
   city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on
   July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing
   the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The
   'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April
   24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of
   Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,
   but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it
   was very sad that all the national war songs of France could
   not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated
   of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of
   the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,
   who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'
   and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.
   The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night
   he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the
   following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous
   song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.
   Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de
   Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre
   pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in
   Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced
   republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons
   la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking
   one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of
   France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.
   … There are many legends on the origin of the
   'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by
   Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité
   sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is
   confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the
   time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de
   Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      History of the French Revolution,
      volume 2, page 114-115._

   A quite different but less trustworthy
   version of the story may be found in

      _A. de Lamartine
      History of the Girondists,
      book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1)._

   ----------MARSEILLES: Start--------

MARSEILLES:
   The founding of.

      See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,
      and PHOCÆANS.

MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.
   Conquest by Cæsar.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

MARSEILLES: 10th Century.
   In the kingdom of Aries.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

MARSEILLES: 11th Century.
   The Viscounts of.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

MARSEILLES: 12th Century.
   Prosperity and freedom.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.
   The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.

      See MARSEILLAISE.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
   Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.
   Reaction against the Reign of Terror.
   The White Terror.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

   ----------MARSEILLES: End--------

MARSHAL, The.

      See CONSTABLE.

MARSHALL, John,
   and the Federal Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789;
      and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARSI, The.

      See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.

MARSIAN WAR, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

MARSIANS, The.

      See SABINES;
      also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

MARSIGNI, The.

   The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what
   is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany;
      Oxford translation, foot-note. _

MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

MARTHA'S VINEYARD:
   Named by Gosnold.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MARTIN,
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;

   King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.

   Martin I., Pope, 649-655.

   Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.

   Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.

   Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.

   Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.

   Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.

   Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).

{2091}

MARTLING MEN.

   In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political
   followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and
   were forming an alliance to that end with the political
   friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards
   called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New
   York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a
   long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state
   by the name of Martling Men."

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, page 230._

MARY
   (called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.

   Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

   Mary II., Queen of England
   (with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.

   Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

   Mary.

      See, also, MARIE.

   ----------MARYLAND: Start--------

MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.
   The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.
   An American palatinate.

   "Among those who had become interested in the London or
   Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir
   George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon
   the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by
   the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government
   of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a
   Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his
   religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in
   which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic
   church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no
   longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on
   him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the
   instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had
   adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The
   king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as
   a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created
   him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of
   intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws
   against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and
   cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his
   religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;
   and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude
   and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land
   and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and
   every man might worship God according to his own heart, in
   peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on
   New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been
   interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,
   he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few
   years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the
   name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see
   NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and
   soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing
   community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the
   south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the
   intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more
   probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in
   order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival
   within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities
   tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,
   as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore
   refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of
   allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to
   accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to
   leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the
   settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded
   country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of
   the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.
   … He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,
   who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.
   Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by
   the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who
   desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
   of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
   issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
   it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
   and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
   succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
   estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
   the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
   'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

      _J. McSherry,
      History of Maryland,
      introduction._

   "The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
   colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
   north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
   and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
   farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
   western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
   a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
   and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
   It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
   large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
   another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
   of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
   ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
   into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
   only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
   made absolute lord of the land and water within his
   boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
   peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
   martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
   justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
   officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
   erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
   titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
   England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
   the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
   impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
   could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
   according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
   the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
   'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
   the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
   Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
   colonists and their descendants were to remain English
   subjects. …
{2092}
   The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
   no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
   the people of the province. … This charter, by which
   Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
   community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
   hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
   abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      chapter 2._

   The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
   distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
   which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
   ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
   royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
   bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
   Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
   held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
   held, use, or enjoy."

      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      volume 2, page. 11. _

      ALSO IN:
      _H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 62._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
   The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.

   "Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
   Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
   plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
   and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
   foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
   induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
   they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
   not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
   been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
   absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
   Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
   taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
   repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
   reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
   take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
   Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
   over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
   Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
   behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
   Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
   in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
   to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
   were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
   no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
   field where they were to look for no support from the
   proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
   was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
   adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
   like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
   The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
   lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
   other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
   these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
   the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
   a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
   captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
   and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
   many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
   from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
   safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
   in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
   named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
   celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
   altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
   25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
   made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
   at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
   river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
   Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
   that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
   savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
   the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
   emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
   the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
   had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
   mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
   town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
   already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
   justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
   werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
   Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
   colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
   gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
   Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
   attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
   other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
   in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
   of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
   at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
   planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
   was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
   fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
   the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of
   the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
   and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
   Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
   Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
   limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
   reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
   their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
   year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
   Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
   preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
   missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
   arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
   sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
   original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
   scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
   and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
   than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
   colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
   January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
   attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
   disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
   was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
   impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

      _J. G. Shea,
      The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      chapter 1_

      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapters 3-4._

{2093}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The troubles with Clayborne.

   William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
   Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
   trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
   King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
   English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
   land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
   there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
   injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
   generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
   strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
   soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
   his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
   unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
   captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
   rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
   should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
   had been in difficulties himself on account of his
   lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
   however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
   to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
   his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
   King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
   only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
   large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
   deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
   decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
   all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
   wait for better times."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bozman,
      History of Maryland,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
   Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
   Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

   The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
   monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
   Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
   substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
   the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
   the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
   commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
   Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
   begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
   Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
   Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
   Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
   Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
   Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
   Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
   but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
   was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
   most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
   Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
   effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
   landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
   government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
   value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
   returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
   The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
   supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
   between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
   least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
   somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
   brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
   less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
   1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
   position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
   fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
   As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
   priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
   beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
   his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
   successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
   a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
   Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
   Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
   any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
   accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
   Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
   protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
   intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
   acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
   make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
   a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
   internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
   changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
   party there had received an important addition. … A number
   of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
   on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
   was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
   Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
   Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
   cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
   settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
   county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
   two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
   140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
   fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
   that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
   and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
   to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
   political views openly at variance with those of the
   Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
   were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
   But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
   in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
   body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
   Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
   proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
       chapter 5._

{2094}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
   The Act of Toleration.

   Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
   of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
   existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
   the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
   But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
   the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
   indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
   whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
   Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
   supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
   inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
   edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
   charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
   earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
   official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
   the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
   most important phasis, in the history of the general
   Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
   take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
   Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
   Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
   since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
   annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
   guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
   to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
   establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
   between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
   freedom as well as protection to all believers in
   Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
   sort of reproach or ignominy."

      _G. L. Davis,
      The Daystar of American Freedom,
      chapters 4-7._

   "In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
   compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
   … It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
   and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
   age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
   been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
   foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
   rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
   was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
   so soon as he was reinstated."

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapter 8._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
   In Puritan times, and after.

   "To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
   populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
   composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
   Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
   fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
   Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
   predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
   faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
   Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
   requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
   passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
   their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
   of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
   laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
   have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
   proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
   was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
   Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
   conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
   protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
   rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
   refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
   of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
   their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
   prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
   was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
   the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
   Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
   commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
   of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
   … Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
   settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
   attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
   Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
   time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
   when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
   however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
   Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
   Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
   Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
   inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
   flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
   fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
   Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
   from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
   England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
   ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
   relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
   Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
   Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
   ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
   and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
   Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
   toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
   Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
   did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
   expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
   proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
   Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
   recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
   to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
   laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
   obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
   in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
   solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
   expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
   In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
   Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
   the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
   the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
   species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
   removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
   attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
   Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
   gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
   at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
   supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
   proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
   succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
   Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
   would have been difficult to find at that time better
   governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
   just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
   well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
   foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
   stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
   toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Grahame,
      History of the United States (Colonial),
      book 3 (volume 1)._

      _D. R. Randall,
       A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6)._

      _W. H. Browne,
      George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
      chapters 8-9._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
   Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
   Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
   The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
   Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
   Change of faith and restoration of his son.
   Intolerance revived.

   Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
   government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
   attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
   charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
   suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
   jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
   peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
   error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
   friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
   to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
   equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
   authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
   every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
   honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
   desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
   had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
   king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
   jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
   which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
   descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
   restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
   legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
   them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
   province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
   liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
   administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
   all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
   they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
   England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
   new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
   the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
   good sense of the government in England did not set some
   bounds to their bigotry."

      _E. Burke,
      Account of the European Settlements in America,
      part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2)._

   "We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
   Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
   years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
   the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
   voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
   included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
   objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
   years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
   connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

      _W. H. Browne,
       Maryland,
      chapter 11._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.
   King William's War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
   The founding of Baltimore.

   "Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
   Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
   founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
   once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
   … St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
   waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
   first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
   the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
   more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
   off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
   away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
   slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
   the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
   least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
   and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
   existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
   1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
   convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
   was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
   whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
   river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
   bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
   The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
   and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
   up."

      _W. H. Browne,
       Maryland,
      chapter 12._

MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War.

      See
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

{2096}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
   Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
   Mason and Dixon's line.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
   The end of proprietary and royal government.
   Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

   "In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
   peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
   enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
   Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
   was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
   vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
   provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
   under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
   that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
   instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
   determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
   of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
   Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
   independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
   counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
   except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
   decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
   pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
   government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
   resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
   Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
   Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
   support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
   the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
   'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
   Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
   of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
   the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
   series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

      _R. Frothingham,
       The Rise of the Republic,
      pp. 525-527._

   "Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
   August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
   constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
   this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
   rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
   constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
   ordered to carry it into effect."

      J. McSherry,
      History of Maryland,
      chapter 10.

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
   Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
   chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
   Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
   Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
   The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Secession activity.
   Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
   Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
   General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
   Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
   The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
   Lee's second invasion.
   Gettysburg.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
   Early's invasion.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
   The founding of Johns Hopkins University.

     See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------MARYLAND: End----------

MARZOCCO.

   "'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
   figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
   shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
   derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
   aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      volume 4, page 103, foot-note._

MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MASKOUTENS,
MASCONTENS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.

MASNADA,

      See CATTANI.

MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

MASORETES,
MASSORETES
MASORETIC.

   When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language
   "the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
   century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols
   which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the
   Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the
   great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance
   with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now
   taught."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 3._

   "Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more
   especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the
   Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their
   object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an
   eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so
   likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a
   Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the
   more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the
   Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.
   Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,
   commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth
   century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."

      _Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge._

{2097}

MASPIANS, The.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

   ----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------

MASSACHUSETTS:
   The Name.

   "The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first
   mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New
   England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears
   to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the
   country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the
   inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets
   River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in
   another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of
   Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the
   English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
   the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small
   hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,
   was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to
   his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word
   means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,
   Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts
   charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,
   to make sure of a description of the territory."

      _C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, page 342, footnote)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.
   The Bay visited by Gosnold.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.
   The Bay visited by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
   The Pilgrim Fathers.
   Whence and why they came to New England.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
   The voyage of the Mayflower.
   The landing of the Pilgrims.
   The founding of Plymouth colony.

   The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after
   long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a
   patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and
   having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London
   who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for
   their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR
   SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of
   1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,
   across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The
   means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
   company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,
   required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster
   accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous
   minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in
   every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'
   next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to
   teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons
   burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in
   July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being
   'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation
   at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the
   parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were
   pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month
   the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival
   there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons
   burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with
   their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the
   merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who
   were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,
   to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about
   the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the
   contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the
   Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of
   their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely
   necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put
   to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well
   settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced
   too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships
   put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were
   made, and before the end of another week they started again;
   but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,
   the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger
   of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
   Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,
   and thus to send back those of the company whom such a
   succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known
   till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was
   owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At
   length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left
   Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November
   9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time
   well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102
   passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one
   man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males
   and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the
   colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them
   accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys
   and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19
   men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only
   half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the
   34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are
   known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are
   certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And
   whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
   in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never
   went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not
   however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under
   this instrument was abandoned.
{2098}
   The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to
   have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
   February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his
   associates; and this was more probably the authority under
   which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had
   known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the
   northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for
   New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the
   patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,
   which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia
   Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,
   with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's
   River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of
   their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition
   from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's
   voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on
   the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination
   exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was
   known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose
   (upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
   license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in
   the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of
   civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the
   farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to
   restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the
   well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as
   the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …
   Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called
   above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
   hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter
   sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them
   soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This
   needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November
   11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and
   found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the
   village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they
   'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John
   Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed
   delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no
   inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a
   permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a
   comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."
   Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor
   since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of
   the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the
   famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate
   mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been
   commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the
   honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John
   Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must
   have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not
   till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower
   was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and
   the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed
   till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the
   first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'
   Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and
   by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship
   for a home on land."

      _F. B. Dexter,
      The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes)._

   "Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument
   founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and
   the success of its authors may afford a lesson to
   revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the
   guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and
   begin history again with the year one. These men had been
   wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We
   whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
   Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great
   Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having
   undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the
   Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage
   to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,
   do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of
   God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves
   together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and
   preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
   and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just
   and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and
   offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for
   the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due
   submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of
   plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor
   record of nobility. There are points in history at which the
   spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through
   the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing
   from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due
   submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,
   for our better ordering and preservation. In this political
   covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration
   of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence
   was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
   France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening
   confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,
   shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same
   moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link
   that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society
   firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free
   States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,
   the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are
   not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social
   man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes
   of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and
   Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and
   worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for
   just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this
   have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      On the Foundation of the American Colonies
      (Lectures on the Study of History)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bradford,
      History of Plymouth Plantation
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      4th series, volume 3), book 1._

      _Mourt's Relation,
      or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
      edited by H. M. Dexter._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

{2099}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
   The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
   The Pierce patent.
   The naming of Plymouth.

   "The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when
   sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.
   Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.
   Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,
   and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or
   seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the
   dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the
   daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the
   unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with
   snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of
   those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little
   variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and
   the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and
   affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were
   interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial
   being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how
   the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and
   fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through
   the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to
   wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took
   the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In
   March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few
   natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly
   Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern
   coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a
   treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of
   the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54
   years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her
   homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which
   had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims
   to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of
   the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they
   had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after
   the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died.
   "Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac
   Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the
   colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48
   adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants
   in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an
   equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise.
   … Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come,
   to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome
   addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune,
   a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage
   of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The
   men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors
   who were still living. … Some were old friends of the
   colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the
   moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement.
   But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety
   and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a
   patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly
   known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or
   North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been
   transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of
   this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down
   without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily
   expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the
   Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained
   from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It
   was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and
   cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the
   understanding that it should be held in trust for the
   Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of
   land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a
   yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It
   granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk,
   fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the
   savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for
   their better government, and the same, by such officer or
   officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put
   in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist
   by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed
   for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox,
   the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando
   Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which
   the settlement has borne since its first year is not known.
   Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been
   given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that
   the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much
   circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for
   adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town
   they left in their native country, and they received many
   kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth'
   and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as
   equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated
   to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      chapters 9-16._

      _F. Baylies,
      Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth,
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

      _A. Young,
      Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.
   Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,
   and other settlements.

   "During the years immediately following the voyage of the
   Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the
   shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,
   Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from
   his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own
   account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some
   twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,
   thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon
   got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to
   get back to England as best they could, and in this the
   Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same
   year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill
   understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,
   Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and
   delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford
   disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of
   Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares
   that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'
{2100}
   He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some
   thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and
   Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was
   naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as
   by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will
   probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625
   there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented
   white servants, and established himself on the site of the
   present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill
   suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off
   to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the
   site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,
   according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and
   his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if
   they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman
   Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd
   Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled
   about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to
   have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common
   Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry
   England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which
   they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they
   taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.
   This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the
   settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.
   Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and
   presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other
   settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few
   scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of
   the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on
   Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the
   Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen
   were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and
   representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Old Planters about Boston Harbor
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878)._

      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan
      (Prince Society, 1883)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623.
   Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
   Plymouth Colony.
   Land allotments.
   Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.
   The new patent.

   "In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and
   the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to
   the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own
   charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann
   and Little James completed the list of those who are usually
   called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in
   September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the
   merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained
   at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time
   the company had worked together on the company lands, and,
   each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of
   that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the
   largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things,
   the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them)
   gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne
   perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all
   other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so
   assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the
   proportion of their number for that end. … This had very
   good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' …
   Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which
   was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a
   certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the
   contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of
   the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was
   committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne
   as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare
   begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the
   quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any
   had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore
   encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to
   the Governor to have some portion of land given them for
   continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well
   considered, their request was granted. And to every person was
   given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the
   towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were
   expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the
   right track, and the growing necessity for some other
   circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests."
   Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a
   good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any
   catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180
   persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine
   and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter
   part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the
   Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was
   discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers
   was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their
   enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to
   England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a
   composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a
   release from the seven years contract under which the
   colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having
   concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the
   purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation,
   for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the
   colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,
   Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the
   trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for
   their security. "In accordance with this agreement these
   gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and
   by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so
   extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs
   and other articles for export to England as within the
   prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and
   leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands.
   No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder
   in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that
   of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore,
   relieved their community from debt, and established on a
   permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. …
{2101}
   After the negotiations with the adventurers had been
   completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent
   from the New England Company conferring larger powers and
   defining their territorial limits. After three visits to
   England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured
   a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the
   Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England,
   enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries
   of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to
   William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New
   England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie
   within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly
   caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the
   river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and
   the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two
   lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the
   Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the
   mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a
   country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias
   Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

      _W. T. Davis,
      Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
      chapter 2._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
   The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor
   and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

   "While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish
   their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the
   growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New
   England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester
   Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was
   established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did
   not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company
   made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from
   Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come
   to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was
   dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few
   others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there.
   Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in
   England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as
   Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company,
   not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one
   backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large
   grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to
   three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the
   Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New
   England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628].
   One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the
   following summer with a small company, assumed the government
   at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out
   exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was
   merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for
   another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become
   wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and
   political liberty alike were not only in danger but were
   doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party
   resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was
   dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester
   Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained
   incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,"
   March 4, 1629.

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 18._

   "This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under
   which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its
   affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell
   and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White
   was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the
   Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor,
   Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of
   Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to
   the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government
   of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the
   Company were to be held in a year, and others might be
   convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor,
   Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month
   or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two
   Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer
   to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company
   might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.'
   They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the
   terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such
   officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing
   of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse,
   repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and
   persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise
   the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said
   plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious
   liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to
   restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity
   to protect it."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the
   insertion of any condition which should fix the government of
   the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the
   advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition,
   but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in
   freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to
   those who held that in transferring the government to America
   the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;
      edited by N. B. Shurtleff,
      volume 1 (containing the Charter)._

      _S. F. Haven,
      Origin of the Company
      (Archœologia Americana, volume 3)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The immigration of the Governor and Company of
   Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

   "Several persons, of considerable importance in the English
   nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the
   unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to
   remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading
   the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them
   without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that
   the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation,
   than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles,
   and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the
   company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the
   governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to
   those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the
   colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the
   future in New England.
{2102}
   An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on
   the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas
   Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that,
   on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March,
   with their persons and families, to embark for New England,
   for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and
   company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a
   general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned
   from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the
   government and the patent of the plantation should be
   transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was
   drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was
   holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers,
   who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the
   court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr.
   John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as
   being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent
   chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations
   were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists,
   and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready.
   Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for
   their leader, immediately set about making preparations for
   his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per
   annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella,
   one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an
   address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was
   drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor
   Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the
   Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship
   with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen
   deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other
   gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about
   840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from
   the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London.
   The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off
   Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day
   entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival,
   the governor, and several of the principal persons of the
   colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the
   purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They
   finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river
   (Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built
   there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected
   cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about
   the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service
   was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of
   thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On
   the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and
   fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown,
   afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop,
   Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into
   church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at
   Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question
   proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the
   gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and
   most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut
   (Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the
   spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its
   situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the
   isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before
   the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles
   above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and
   afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the
   ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by
   the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon
   acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the
   6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for
   the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for
   provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and
   they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

      _J. B. Moore,
      Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth
      and Massachusetts Bay;
      part 2: Winthrop._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. C. Winthrop,
      Life and Letters of John Winthrop,
      volume 1, chapters 15-19,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-4._

      _A. Young,
      Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapters 14-19._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
   The founding of Boston.

   "The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first
   located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called
   Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named
   Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among
   the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of
   Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was
   William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling
   above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan
   clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home
   in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English
   bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,
   had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort
   which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'
   and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East
   Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,
   the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was
   probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly
   know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But
   scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among
   them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They
   began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly
   to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good
   William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their
   distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at
   Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account
   induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,
   wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of
   the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and
   Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at
   Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown
   was so general that at last only a few of the original
   settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority
   were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most
   influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with
   others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for
   himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,
   Washington and School Streets.
{2103}
   Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died
   before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the
   chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor
   the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now
   become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to
   make a second change of location practicable, or even
   desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before
   high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The
   governor then removed the frame of his new house from
   Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land
   between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One
   of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane
   is easily traced. The people first located themselves within
   the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and
   Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the
   southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became
   a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of
   the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new
   emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all
   the town south of this district was called. In time a third
   district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was
   called the West End. And in the old city these general
   divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first
   name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing
   always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,
   had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut
   Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But
   when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a
   place of that name in England, and because they had determined
   beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the
   second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas
   Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground
   now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …
   Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town
   market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal
   landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground
   and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of
   Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.
   From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,
   and Fort Hills."

      _S. A. Drake,
      Around the Hub,
      chapter 2._

   "The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop
   presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was
   passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count
   it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was
   specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its
   association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of
   Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and
   her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still
   preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of
   the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is
   nowhere given."

      _R. C. Winthrop,
      Boston Founded
      (Memorial History of Boston;
      edited by J. Winsor,
      volume 1), pages 116-117._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor
      (Mem. History, pages 63-86)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.

   "The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no
   condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what
   under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing,
   the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the
   will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first
   Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body
   of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it
   was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man
   shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but
   such as are members of some of the churches within the limits
   of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for
   the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been
   accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon
   well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown,
   the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and
   they had a right to choose according to their own rules the
   associates who should help them to occupy and govern it.
   Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and
   citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained
   to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They
   established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to
   Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which
   should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation,
   all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been
   to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all
   intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart
   king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures
   should be their guide both in weighty matters of general
   legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of
   daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious
   liberty as we understand it."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

   "The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and
   administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New
   Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the
   Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it
   was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any
   part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as
   King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their
   Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be
   identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian
   believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of
   opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,
   should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the
   commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty
   of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within
   Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the
   letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in
   any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the
   colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt
   the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,
   till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should
   be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results
   of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.
   This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit
   of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …
{2104}
   That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the
   Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a
   due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'
   furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and
   all the bright things in their early history. The young people
   educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,
   plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not
   free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid
   subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through
   and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences
   of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the
   Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was
   based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended
   their State should be also."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Lowell Institute Lectures
      on the Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 50-55._

   "Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could
   be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the
   town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly
   somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this
   insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which
   they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the
   head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes
   and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this
   hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were
   learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds
   burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs
   and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not
   only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to
   Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _P. Oliver,
      The Puritan Commonwealth,
      chapter 2, part 1._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.
   Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and
   the French on the Maine coast.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.
   Threatening movements in England.
   The Charter demanded.

   "That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile
   eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all
   surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be
   that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a
   charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the
   Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king
   thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen
   of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their
   minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might
   divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes.
   Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the
   Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island;
   and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be
   sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home
   in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may
   have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts
   charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors.
   But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to
   present the case in a new light. The young colony was not
   languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought
   mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had
   begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical
   and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one.
   It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon
   Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles
   regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite
   justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so.
   Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics
   from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their
   tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously
   pressing their territorial claims."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 3._

   In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
   removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
   commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
   and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
   the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
   to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
   and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
   to revoke all charters and patents which had been
   surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
   prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
   governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
   the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
   it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
   home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
   any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
   the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
   brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
   the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
   governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
   laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
   magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
   other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
   poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
   all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
   declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
   'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
   not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
   declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
   should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
   men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
   emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
   remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
   associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
   religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
   change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
   council for the colonization of New England," which now
   schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
   general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
   which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
   others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
   severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
   the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
   was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
   the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
   England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
   against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
   outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
{2105}
   The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
   Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
   these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
   redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
   different humours,' took the government of New England into
   his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
   governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
   ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
   of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
   thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
   no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
   thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
   ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
   Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1)._

      _ALSO IN:
      T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
   The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.
   The migration to Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
   The banishment of Roger Williams.

   "The intolerance of England had established the New England
   colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in
   their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the
   unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at
   Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,
   having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to
   have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in
   questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his
   sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of
   toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,
   state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was
   impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to
   Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to
   the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the
   assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its
   choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where
   he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to
   Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his
   congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of
   land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.
   His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his
   satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.
   But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of
   the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete
   separation from the Church of England, and denounced
   compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
   Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest
   extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of
   the people, and had no right to protect the people against
   itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as
   disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,
   Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions
   were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice
   was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain
   the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be
   dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the
   court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed
   to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to
   depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.
   The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their
   pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of
   New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to
   oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much
   taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a
   large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered
   round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the
   Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to
   ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to
   arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he
   had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory
   of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

      _A. Doyle,
      The American Colonies,
      chapter 2._

   "His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the
   holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air
   to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common
   earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was
   because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among
   whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and
   seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their
   community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of
   truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was
   not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his
   friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of
   his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be
   revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his
   sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of
   Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of
   gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,
   and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of
   having procured his sentence, there was no private feud
   between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious
   persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'
   Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of
   his life and conduct, to have been one of the most
   disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
   heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,
   'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their
   judgment led them to afflict me.'"

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      chapters 3-5._

      _E. B. Underhill,
      introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'
      (Hansard Knollys Society)._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

{2106}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
   Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

   "The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian
   controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously
   near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts
   colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a
   time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable
   and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the
   interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously
   enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,
   in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.
   Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold
   spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak
   husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no
   ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her
   brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself
   again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here
   for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable
   woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and
   sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman
   question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than
   it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who
   was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years
   she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did
   likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a
   weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of
   Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over
   one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by
   nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and
   in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of
   it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she
   had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to
   inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian
   means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation
   to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external
   duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,
   spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned
   construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by
   faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was
   understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by
   a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for
   outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or
   censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,
   according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her
   admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that
   Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.
   Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the
   ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the
   rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These
   reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing
   brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching
   inflammable material. … As the contention extended it
   involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and
   all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these
   five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be
   sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and
   leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly
   opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending
   influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come
   over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at
   the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.
   "Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then
   the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him
   in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage
   counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two
   other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a
   majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt
   emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome
   by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of
   the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,
   1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later
   at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long
   Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New
   Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were
   disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;
   8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had
   asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a
   limitation of time within which they must do it. The more
   estimable and considerable of them apologized and were
   received back."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Lowell Institute Lectures on the
      Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 95-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 2._

      _Ecclesiastical History of New England
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      series 1, volume 9)._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Anne Hutchinson
      (Library of American Biographies,
      new series, volume 6)._

      _J. Anderson,
      Memorable Women of Puritan Times,
      volume 1, pages 185-220._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
   The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

   The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
   in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
   what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
   Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
   first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
   here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
   meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
   Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
   it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
   situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
   it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
   'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
   unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
   to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
   feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
   had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
   in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
   Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
   bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
   of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
   decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
   point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
   Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
   its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
   eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
   all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
   mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
   language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
   Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
{2107}
   The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
   somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
   activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
   ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
   Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
   Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
   soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
   was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
   promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
   acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
   conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
   of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
   magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
   held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
   of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
   patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
   gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
   of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
   chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
   and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
   faction,—one of those most active in the work of
   repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
   intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
   that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
   It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
   the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
   approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a
   theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
   Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
   one hundred and fifty years."

      _C. F. Adams,
      Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
      pages 10-59._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.
   Introduction of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.
   The first printing press set up.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
   The end of the Puritan exodus.
   Numerical growth and political development.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.
   Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.
   The first Public School law.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
   The Confederation of the Colonies.
   The growth of Plymouth.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
   Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
   The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

   "There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who
   disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to
   members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New
   England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented
   in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of
   this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,
   and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first
   sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems
   conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was
   nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical
   moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents
   which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil
   war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the
   leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of
   Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they
   simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised
   citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering
   wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of
   Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and
   the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to
   start for England with his grievances, the magistrates
   overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the
   parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that
   Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that
   a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule
   there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a
   crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The
   signers of this petition were the same who had signed the
   petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more
   heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found
   their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists
   sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart
   their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of
   the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's
   Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his
   friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of
   churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization
   of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was
   embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the
   Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the
   powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of
   magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid
   this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was
   adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the
   theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in
   Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the
   deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John
   Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Mather,
      Magnalia Christi Americana,
      book 5, part 2._

      _B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
   Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

   "Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
   Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
   fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
   her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
   useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
   of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
   loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
   Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
   ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
   approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
   approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
   received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
   are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
   pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
   refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
   royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
   wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
   The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
   terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
   be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
   by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
   that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
   Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
   under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
   this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
   wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
   was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
   force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
   that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
   them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
   not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
   was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
   Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
   colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
   disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
   of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
   'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
   Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
   people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
   were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
   to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
   world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
   the lord protector was respectfully declined."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
   The absorption of Maine.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of the Quakers.

   "In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
   Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
   arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
   known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
   'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
   once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
   they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
   the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
   and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
   They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
   without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
   Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
   women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
   contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
   'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
   they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
   closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
   "laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
   Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
   Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
   first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
   ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
   their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
   things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
   swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
   getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
   determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
   law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
   urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
   banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
   penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
   and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
   1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
   pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
   October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
   drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
   Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
   was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
   She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
   valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
   was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
   again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
   felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
   pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
   end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
   whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
   in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
   death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
   promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
   testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
   this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
   succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
   Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
   death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
   confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
   this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
   found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
   Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
   sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
   prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
   much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
   England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
   restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
   (September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
   from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
   [the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
   commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
   in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
   ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
   Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 36._

   "Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
   assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
   deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
   in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
   had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
   demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
   general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
   the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
   ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
   dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
   relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
   stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
   the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
   opened the gates of mercy."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule,
      pp. 477-479._

{2109}

   While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
   "the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
   recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
   dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
   far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
   had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
   Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
   accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
   'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
   declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
   the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
   condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
   'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
   opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
   desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
   punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
   respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
   Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
   threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
   forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
   protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
   his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
   colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
   Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      B. Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 5.

      _R. P. Hallowell,
      The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
   The Halfway Covenant.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
   Under the Restored Monarchy.
   The first collision with the crown.

   "In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
   ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
   accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
   Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
   the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
   together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
   the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
   in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
   of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
   of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
   something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
   crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
   declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
   published. In this document the people affirmed their right
   'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
   representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
   their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
   and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
   exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
   all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
   to defend themselves by force of arms against every
   aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
   any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
   country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
   legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
   Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
   drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
   celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
   colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
   and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
   those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
   was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
   with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
   force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
   the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
   moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
   England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
   convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
   Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
   present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
   the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
   the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
   1662. In England they were courteously received by king
   Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
   confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
   offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
   irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
   directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
   the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
   justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
   all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
   the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
   allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
   booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
   manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
   proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
   With them the question of obedience became a question of
   freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
   divide the colony until the establishment of actual
   independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
   with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
   do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
   "that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
   affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
   The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
   committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
   keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
   give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
   Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
   except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
   five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
   three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
   were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
   settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
   to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
   determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
   matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
   'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
   peace and security of the country, according to their good and
   sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
   Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
{2110}
   At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
   warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
   assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
   Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
   the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
   affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
   agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
   against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
   be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
   being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
   the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
   vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
   members of the church.' Before the session closed,
   Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
   complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
   address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
   commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
   were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
   call in question "the privilege of government within
   themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
   hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
   merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
   who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
   any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
   departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
   of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
   Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
   have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
   Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
   our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
   followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
   the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
   his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
   thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
   government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
   and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

      _G. L. Austin,
      History of Massachusetts,
      chapter 4._

      _Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 4, part 2._

      See, also,
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
   The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

   "Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
   there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
   England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
   the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
   wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
   Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
   followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
   1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
   debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
   March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
   Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
   Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
   these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
   molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
   which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
   With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
   and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
   Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
   injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
   heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
   Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
   reserving one third of the product of the customs for
   themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
   the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
   the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
   complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
   relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
   questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
   share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
   feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
   manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
   American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
   ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
   carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
   appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
   act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
   and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
   chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
   Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
   that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
   them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
   upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
   was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
   war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
   repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
   was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
   they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
   to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
   their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
   was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
   contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
   an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
   difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
   bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
   make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
   knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
   had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
   concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
   be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
   instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
   General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
   having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
   territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
   The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
   two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
   and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
   doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
   now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
   all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
   the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
   pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
   Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
   paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
   made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
   Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
   which was never forgiven.
{2111}
   Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
   matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
   attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
   opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
   spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
   alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
   patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
   and injuries which she had continually practised on her
   neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
   that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
   Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
   saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
   ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
   perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
   were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
   clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
   authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
   emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
   changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
   the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
   Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
   opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
   lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
   were no longer united in support of the policy of their
   pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
   while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
   this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
   which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
   Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
   The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
   of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
   destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
   declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
   laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
   hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
   colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
   There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
   annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
   hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
   a series of reports to the government which seem to have
   produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
   In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
   auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
   Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
   the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
   might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
   of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
   impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
   agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
   tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
   urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
   stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
   alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
   of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
   king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
   at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
   would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
   Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
   warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
   promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
   should be restored with only such changes as the public
   welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
   sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
   magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
   they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
   safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
   the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
   against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
   they felt that the loss of their importance would be
   'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
   kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
   resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
   church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
   guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
   the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
   Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
   as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
   the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
   no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
   reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
   'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
   1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
   plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
   allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
   was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
   Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
   from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
   and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
   priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
   government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
   Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
   must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
   without."

      _Brooks Adams,
      The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
      chapter 6._

   "December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
   the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
   James for the government of New England."

      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
      chapter 13._

      C. Deane,
      _The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
      (Memorial History of Boston,
      volume 1, pages 329-382)._

      _Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 5._

      See, also,
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
   The severance of New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

{2112}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
   The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

   "With the charter were swept away representative government,
   and every right and every political institution reared during
   half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
   model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
   despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
   misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
   arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
   a people of English race, who had been independent and
   self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
   pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
   promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
   intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
   taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
   resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
   to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
   of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
   old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
   renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
   resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
   and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
   forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
   the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
   courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
   and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
   unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
   to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
   Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
   proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
   apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
   signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
   poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
   the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
   merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
   Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
   and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
   were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
   captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
   guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
   established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
   were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
   went back a prisoner to England."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3)._

      _The Andros Tracts;
      edited by w. H. Whitmore
      (Prince Society, 1868)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
   The procuring of the new Charter.
   The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
   The absorption of Plymouth.

   A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship
   from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation
   of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body
   of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from
   their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified
   that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was
   published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the
   representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met
   at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be
   forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners
   but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions
   were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the
   unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they
   could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many
   opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was
   resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be
   continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious
   of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used
   prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase
   Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took
   place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with
   the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance
   that he would remove Andros from the government of New England
   and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious
   for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,
   under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent
   applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the
   wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent
   judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first
   a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of
   Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional
   privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of
   Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the
   reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of
   New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies
   opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a
   grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But
   before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been
   acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was
   prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to
   be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the
   king, continuing the government of the colony under the old
   charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and
   his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the
   trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir
   Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,
   and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of
   Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of
   chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of
   the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the
   agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to
   relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,
   and "application was made for a new grant, which should
   confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in
   addition as the experience of the people had taught them would
   be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the
   affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the
   attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to
   be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to
   attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with
   Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that
   Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should
   be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former
   more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought
   about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence
   averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was
   objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the
   powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.
   The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents
   were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as
   plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were
   unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty
   would settle the country without them, and they might take
   what would follow.'
{2113}
   Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would
   submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the
   king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather
   opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter
   was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories
   of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther
   east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were
   to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,
   appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the
   people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last
   Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw
   fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to
   represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was
   conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of
   forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least
   forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the
   oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of
   the province and their children were entitled to the liberties
   of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was
   secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a
   negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without
   his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his
   sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and
   if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no
   effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy
   taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial
   law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an
   requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a
   far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It
   effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of
   government, the powers of the people, and the entire
   foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a
   new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown
   was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,
   that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor
   of the new province."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Whitmore,
      The Inter-Charter Period
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 2)._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 13._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War.
   Temporary conquest of Acadia.
   Disastrous expedition against Quebec.
   Threatened attack by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.

   "The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all
   other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely
   rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a
   hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances
   witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of
   New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three
   or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished
   for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more
   than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been
   three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.
   At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter
   was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in
   feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of
   proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and
   other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from
   President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious
   Providences,' in which that influential person related
   numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with
   the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton
   Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A
   poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious
   children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed
   to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted
   and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took
   the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she
   dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his
   credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his
   most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …
   Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable
   Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a
   collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not
   only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it
   obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may
   be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the
   more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …
   Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem
   which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a
   separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of
   talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but
   avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his
   parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,
   there had been angry disputes about the election of a
   minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and
   relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth
   Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A
   niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His
   neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter
   named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few
   other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or
   thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about
   the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and
   used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and
   practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those
   which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They
   forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural
   outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable
   of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they
   interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.
   The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and
   baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery
   was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'
   assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring
   ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a
   prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children
   performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation
   by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the
   next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was
   exercised.
{2114}
   It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.
   For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to
   an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless
   by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of
   Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half
   negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from
   Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good
   was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been
   prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her
   second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her
   reputation was not good, and for some time she had been
   bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,
   whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was
   afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.
   Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and
   Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then
   thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for
   trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out
   against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the
   latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same
   Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of
   Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with
   diabolical practices."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. W. Upham,
      Salem Witchcraft,
      part 3 (volume 2)._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Annals of Witchcraft in New England._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.

   "Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of
   Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible
   shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,
   too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and
   strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one
   of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the
   Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would
   not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked
   thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once
   the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into
   prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,
   Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George
   Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good
   people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the
   numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then
   brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor
   (Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been
   accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there
   was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on
   the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd
   of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one
   of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a
   new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor
   Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,
   Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn
   in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka
   Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were
   brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to
   death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted
   by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,
   and others made great outcries; and the popular
   dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to
   the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of
   Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated
   Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to
   die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,
   and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,
   and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that
   if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'
   which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was
   choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their
   innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of
   August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend
   George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,
   George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by
   some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's
   Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly
   obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of
   witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a
   witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing
   witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do
   it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was
   a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and
   brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own
   grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony
   of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and
   sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on
   the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister
   Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's
   Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there
   was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as
   he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed
   the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no
   Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding
   his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel
   of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the
   accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge
   against him. What could be done with him? It was found that
   for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to
   death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints
   were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the
   ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,
   till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff
   with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such
   cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people
   to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in
   this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were
   carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great
   concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring
   villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and
   singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or
   pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no
   leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was
   consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,
   said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell
   hanging there!' Sad indeed!
{2115}
   Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were
   condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred
   more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had
   acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.
   … It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be
   spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a
   better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the
   bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and
   many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The
   juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than
   the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently
   seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the
   church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other
   words, the better class of church members were in danger! At
   the January session, only three were convicted, and they were
   reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and
   said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,
   Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all
   who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The
   excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil
   work was done."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. P. Fowler, editor,
      Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's
      "More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.)._

      _C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,
      Historical Sketch of Salem,
      chapter 2._

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.

   "On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight
   after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives
   of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their
   minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance
   against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions
   that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.
   The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,
   that the people might be led in the right way as to the
   witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established
   a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of
   the following year. This interval gave the public mind
   security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the
   place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted
   independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,
   six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated
   the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but
   as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from
   the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand
   jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against
   whom bills were found through the testimony on which others
   had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The
   people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes
   regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the
   remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the
   judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on
   a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in
   which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.
   Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves
   that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of
   wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the
   abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

   "It was long before the public mind recovered from its
   paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the
   tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it
   were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all
   the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the
   bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical
   faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;
   the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the
   universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and
   philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the
   utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of
   the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with
   the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.
   Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief
   and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to
   condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the
   violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to
   the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had
   encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other
   men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became
   the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of
   being the place of the transactions.'"

      _C. W. Upham,
      Salem Witchcraft,
      volume 2, supplement._

   "The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless
   deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that
   dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where
   their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or
   others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the
   younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or
   imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own
   lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between
   neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,
   cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by
   hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a
   frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate
   they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their
   hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …
   In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance
   it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all
   others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into
   confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died
   protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,
   though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives
   of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the
   character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great
   many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."

      _J. R. Lowell,
      Witchcraft
      (Among My Books, series 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. M. Beard,
      Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.
   Queen Anne's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.
   The first Newspaper.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2116}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.
   The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.
   Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
   Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
   The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.

   "It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French
   in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws
   more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once
   threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the
   custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant
   him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching
   for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general
   search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,
   by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where
   contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A
   special search-warrant was one in which the name of the
   suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to
   search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was
   intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the
   use of such special warrants there was not much danger of
   gross injustice or oppression. … But the general
   search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called
   because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by
   giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It
   was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might
   fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and
   goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was
   therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had
   been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a
   statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in
   the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in
   England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.
   There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such
   search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of
   Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.
   James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,
   with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from
   government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view
   of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office
   and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of
   Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A
   large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a
   cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in
   the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or
   what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.
   Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one
   of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the
   writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took
   five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches
   of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question
   at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional
   relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the
   bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the
   Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were
   bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in
   making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly
   and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone
   pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it
   was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was
   present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child
   Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved
   his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers
   of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed
   by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to
   the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house
   officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into
   warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been
   smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property
   to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the
   owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their
   doors and windows, and thus the officers were often
   successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in
   coming to aid them."

      _J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Tudor,
      Life of James Otis,
      chapters 5-7._

      _F. Bowen,
      Life of James Otis
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.
   The Circular Letter to other colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre."
   Removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.
   The Boston patriots threatened.
   Virginia roused to their support.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The coming of the Tea Ships.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.
   Destruction of Tea at Boston.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.
   Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

{2117}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
   Organization of an independent Provisional Government.
   The Committee of Safety.
   Minute-men.

   "Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
   General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
   by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected
   to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves
   into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,
   adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and
   calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.
   It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be
   held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were
   called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive
   authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with
   large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee
   of Supplies."

      _R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      page 41._

   Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of
   Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren
   and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.
   White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson
   of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who
   declined) a complete and effective administration of
   government, entirely independent of royal authority, was
   brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,
   William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were
   added to the committee.

      _R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      page 389._

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Washington in command at Cambridge.
   British evacuation of Boston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).
   Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.

   "Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of
   the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their
   session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style
   of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people
   and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in
   dating official papers, the particular year of the king was
   omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in
   May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the
   people of the several towns in the province were advised to
   give instructions to their respective representatives, to be
   chosen for the following political year, on the subject of
   independence. It is not contended that this was the first
   instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for
   North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates
   to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and
   Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination
   by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though
   a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed
   their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the
   towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly
   every instance the instructions to their representatives were
   favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 3, chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).
   The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.
   Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),
      to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.
   Treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.
   Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.
   Western territorial claims
   and their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.
   Settlement of land claims with New York.
   The cession of western New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
   The Shays Rebellion.

   "The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of
   the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the
   Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of
   lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable
   to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land
   taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.
   Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the
   State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great
   public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and
   citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private
   creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.
   Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and
   his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's
   hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the
   county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court
   officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the
   high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost
   attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature
   annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But
   the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of
   resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And
   herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of
   malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the
   sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no
   court could be held. … This first success of the
   Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order
   throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in
   stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the
   authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching
   troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;
   for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the
   emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic
   citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough
   to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,
   was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had
   more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his
   followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised
   and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil
   order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions
   not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated
   with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a
   re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest
   pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life
   for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran
   Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity
   and love of popular applause."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _J. G. Holland,
      History of West Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18._

      _M. A. Green,
      Springfield, 1636-1886,
      chapter 14._

      _J. E. A. Smith,
      History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,
      chapters 21-22._

{2118}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.
   Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The founding of Amherst College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.
   The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1820.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.
   Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.
   Butler and Baltimore.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.
   The founding of Clark University.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.

   ----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------

MASSACRES.
   Of Glenco.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

MASSACRES:
   Of the Mamelukes (1811).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

MASSACRES:
   Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MASSACRES:
   Of St. Bartholomew's Day.

MASSACRES:
      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.

MASSACRES:
   Of St. Brice's Day (1002).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

MASSACRES:
   Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

MASSACRES:
   Of the Shiites.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MASSACRES:
   The Sicilian Vespers (1282).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

MASSAGETÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS.

MASSALIANS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

MASSALIOTS.

   The people of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

MASSENA, Marshal, Campaigns of.

   See FRANCE:
   A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
   1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
   1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);
   1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);
   1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);
   1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);
   and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

MASSILIA.

   The ancient name of Marseilles.

      See PHOCÆANS.

MASSIMILIANO, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1512-1515.

MASSORETES.

   See MASORETES.

MASULIPATAM, English capture of (1759).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

MATAGUAYAS, The.

   See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MATELOTAGE.

   See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

MATHER, Cotton, and the Witchcraft excitement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

MATHER, Increase, and the new Massachusetts Charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

MATILDA, Donation of the Countess.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MATRONA, The.

   The ancient name of the river Marne.

MATRONALIA, The.

   An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March,
   in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make
   peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See ROME: THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN.

MATTHIAS,
   Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1612-1619.

   Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 1457-1490.

MATTIACI, The.

   The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.
   They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See, also, MOGONTIACUM.

MAUREGATO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 783-788.

   ----------MAURETANIA: Start--------

MAURETANIA.
MAURETANIANS.
MOORS.

      See NUMIDIANS.

MAURETANIA:
   Under the Romans.

      See AFRICA: THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

MAURETANIA: A. D. 374-398.-Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

      See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

MAURETANIA:
   Conquest by the Vandals. See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

MAURETANIA:
   Mahometan Conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

MAURETANIA:
   Mediæval and Modern History.

      See MAROCCO;
      also, BARBARY STATES.

   ----------MAURETANIA: End--------

MAURICE,
   Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 582-602.

   Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585, to 1621-1633.

   Maurice of Saxony, The dishonorable exploits of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MAURIENNE, Counts of.

   The earliest title of the princes of the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

MAURITANIANS.

   See MAURETANIA.

MAURITIUS, or the Isle of France, English acquisition of the (1810).

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
   also, INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MAURITIUS RIVER.

   The name given by the Dutch to the Hudson River.

MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.

   See CARIANS.

MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

MAVROVALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 12TH CENTURY.

MAXEN, Capitulation of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

MAXIMIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 286-305.

{2119}

MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

   Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,
   A. D. 1486-1493;
   Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.

   Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary
   and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.

MAXIMIN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 235-238.

MAXIMUS, Revolt of.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

MAXYANS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

MAY, Cape
MEY, Cape:
   The Name.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

MAY LAWS, The German.

       See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

MAY LAWS, The Russian, of 1882.

      See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

MAYAS, The, and their early civilization.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

MAYENCE.

      See MENTZ.

MAYFLOWER, The Voyage of the.

   See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

MAYNOOTH, Siege of.

   The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of
   1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23
   of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The
   rebellion soon collapsed.

      _J. A. Fronde,
      History of England,
      chapter 8._

MAYNOOTH GRANT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1844.

MAYO, Lord, The Indian administration and the assassination of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

   "The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish
   kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first
   superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of
   the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of
   his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was
   their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to
   administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the
   wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of
   the king with the leudes; this was their first character,
   their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised
   the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the
   palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants
   of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became
   great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of
   companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and
   united in order to defend their common interests. According as
   their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes
   resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first
   servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an
   aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are
   the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more
   extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the
   Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than
   anywhere else."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

MAYORUNA,
BARBUDO, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MAYPO, Battle of (1818).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

MAZACA.

   "Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated
   at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish),
   about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed
   the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on
   the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil
   Ermak)."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 22._

MAZARIN, Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1659-1661.

MAZARINE BIBLE, The.

   See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MAZARQUIVER, Siege of (1563).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

MAZES.

      See LABYRINTHS.

MAZOR.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MAZZINI, Joseph, and the revolutionary movements in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

MEADE, General George G.:
   Command of the Army of the Potomac.
   Battle of Gettysburg, and after.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);
      and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MEAL-TUB PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

MEANEE, Battle of (1843).

   See SCINDE.

MEAUX, Siege of.

   The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously
   besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but
   surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 249-259._

   ----------MECCA: Start--------

MECCA:
   Rise of Mahometanism.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: 609-632.

MECCA: A. D. 692.
   Siege by the Omeyyads.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

MECCA: A. D. 929.
   Stormed and Pillaged by the Carmathians.

      See CARMATHIANS.

   ----------MECCA: End--------

MECHANICSVILLE, Engagements at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN;
      and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

   ----------MECHLIN: Start--------

MECHLIN: A. D. 1572.
   Pillage and massacre by Alva's troops.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MECHLIN: A. D. 1585.
   Surrender to the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

   ----------MECHLIN: End--------

MECKLENBURG: The Duchy bestowed on Wallenstein (1628).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

MECKLENBURG DECLARATION, The.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

MEDAIN.

   Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic
   name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and
   Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said
   to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is
   ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and
   Ctesiphon."

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapters 10 and 17._

{2120}

   ----------MEDIA: Start--------

MEDIA AND THE MEDES.

   The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided
   very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia,
   between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of
   Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and
   no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the
   variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three
   sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision.
   Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain
   closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems
   to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its
   entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west
   and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation
   may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the
   centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by
   that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the
   Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked
   by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known
   as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert,
   whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards
   the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We
   may place the southern limit with much probability about the
   line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the
   present boundary between Irak and Fars."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1._

   "The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian
   tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been
   already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient
   times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the
   religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names
   that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation
   consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates,
   Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already
   found to be a hereditary order of Priests."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1._

   The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing
   authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy
   which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh
   century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying
   Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates,
   and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The
   Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian,
   endured little more than half a century. It was the first of
   the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros,
   the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 5, chapters 1-4._

MEDIA:
   The ancient religion.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

   ----------MEDIA: End----------

MEDIA ATROPATENE.

      See ATROPATENE.

MEDIÆVAL, Belonging to the.

      See MIDDLE AGES.

   ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: Start--------

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Chronology of Development.

   Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the
   chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three
   grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The
   First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back
   as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the
   end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death
   of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of
   time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of
   the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men,
   is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and
   great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may
   be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material
   to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and
   discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the
   medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or
   imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch
   than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha
   state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable
   metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of
   man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus
   from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and
   last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers
   us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the
   republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It
   would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the
   inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine
   arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are
   changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching
   Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the
   ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the
   poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious
   activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for
   everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not
   suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the
   history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age
   into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and
   which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four
   periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first
   period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct,
   ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the
   Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period,
   extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to
   about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the
   foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the
   Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the
   Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the
   year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek
   Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library,
   A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and
   closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins
   the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is
   distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last
   period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the
   writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform
   Period."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      introduction._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Egyptian.

   "Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of
   separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no
   more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some
   undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head,
   others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some
   those which are not local."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by Rawlinson,
      book 2, chapter 84._

{2121}

   "Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in
   Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they
   were sent for at various times from other countries. Their
   knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229),
   who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving
   medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an
   infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses
   knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,'
   says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many
   medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical
   men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem
   examinations were made in order to discover the nature of
   maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury;
   but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient
   to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a
   capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any
   other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the
   sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the
   prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young
   practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons
   privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says
   'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to
   alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before,
   taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11).
   Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that
   they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern
   practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some
   mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society
   from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that
   doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on
   military service, when patients were treated free of expense
   (Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to
   treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid
   them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious
   people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to
   donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. …
   Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have
   been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up
   and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women;
   which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as
   in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the
   sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in
   Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to
   embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori,
   who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians,
   were expected to know about all things relating to the body,
   and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred
   books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second
   king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical
   books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the
   origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the
   Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the
   result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by Rawlinson,
      Note._

   "The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously
   studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the
   treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus,
   an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the
   prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the
   forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many
   portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge
   of its authors."

      _G. Ebers,
      Egypt,
      volume 2, pages 61-62._

   "Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times,
   and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of
   immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second
   century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the
   Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the
   reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered
   himself with glory by the invention of an infallible
   hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have
   prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less
   than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the
   finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by
   Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten
   pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold
   hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of
   Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the
   Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all
   kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and
   some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the
   mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon
   earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an
   application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The
   Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical
   works, which were regarded as final. The physician who
   faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or
   cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient
   according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he
   paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what
   the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever
   recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre,
   beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile
   of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds
   of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and
   crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."

      _A. B. Edwards,
      Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers,
      chapter 6._

   "In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something
   assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and
   can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to
   the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity
   of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,
   that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws
   itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats
   a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to
   perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in
   possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,
   drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by
   powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting
   incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use
   medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of
   the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a
   finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers
   are therefore divided into several categories.
{2122}
   Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and
   talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have
   driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they
   study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the
   diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is
   suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured
   and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are
   gathered during the night at the full moon, others are
   efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in
   winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding
   themselves exclusively to either method."

      _G. Maspéro,
      Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,
      chapter 7._

   "The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned
   by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of
   many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the
   Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their
   application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved.
   … Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable
   medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen,
   while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an
   infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where
   each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and
   Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that
   country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the
   physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of
   the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he
   observes that it was a country productive of numerous
   diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus,
   who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so
   healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the
   invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's
   time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had
   probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause
   may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans,
   'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author
   tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death,
   to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had
   died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced
   in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign
   each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to
   this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience
   for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the
   medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign
   and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus
   and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The
   Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having
   invented the art of curing diseases."

      _Sir J. G. Wilkinson,
      Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

   "The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion
   over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and
   for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded
   themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age.
   … The science of medicine of the period was fully
   represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who,
   according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to
   the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About
   the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the
   expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria
   still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and
   notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of
   a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited,
   equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for
   diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of
   Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and
   at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one
   of his officers in Egypt."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy During the Middle Ages,
      chapter 3._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Babylonian.

   The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill,
   they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up
   to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or
   have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him
   advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in
   their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is
   allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him
   what his ailment is."

      _Herodotus,
      History,
      translated by G. Rawlinson,
      book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1)._

   "The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of
   cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the
   cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this
   latter, judging from the indications which are given of its
   symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of
   erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal
   passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the
   head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long
   formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists
   on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the
   forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a
   tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the
   sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara,
   the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head
   pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the
   palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like
   doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky,
   like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be
   replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen
   will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of
   these incantations against diseases, which filled the second
   book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same
   plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease
   and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the
   formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and
   the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the
   incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the
   end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks,
   which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure
   for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which
   was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is
   a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been
   prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the
   right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's
   diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the
   head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid
   with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his
   feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let
   the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like
   a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing
   waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were
   conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Chaldean Magic,
      chapters 1 and 3._

{2123}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Finnish.

   "The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of
   diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded
   upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for
   the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same
   family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of
   language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having
   been composed by people with very different ideas about the
   supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an
   incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady,
   disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds;
   inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may
   take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant
   regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where
   the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon
   the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered
   with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to
   be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of
   pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks
   pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who
   formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their
   sufferings.'"

      _F. Lenormant,
      Chaldean Magic,
      chapter 17._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Hindu.

   "There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect
   opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine,
   as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace
   with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they
   attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as
   any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was
   practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the
   discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed
   that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would
   render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and
   fertility of their native country would furnish them with many
   valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis,
   accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with
   great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica,
   is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great
   attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on
   the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or
   favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This
   branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be
   added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which
   subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much
   absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or
   Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works,
   however, are of little avail to the present generation, as
   they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely
   understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions
   of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two
   important branches, without which the whole system must be
   defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that
   these were not likely to have been much cultivated in
   Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of
   highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is
   considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and
   is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated
   to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons
   of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became
   the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot
   fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their
   descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins,
   according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal
   youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and
   consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars
   between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts
   amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be
   suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required
   chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two
   Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary
   absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor
   of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more
   subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at
   least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were
   obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving
   the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend.
   Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has
   asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and
   Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in
   the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts
   and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once
   extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its
   rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now,
   it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an
   enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the
   disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is
   evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and
   instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those
   writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being
   regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of
   the highest authority."

      _H. H. Wilson,
      Essays on Sanskrit Literature,
      pages 269-276, and 391._

   "The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily
   large. The former are either systems embracing the whole
   domain of the science, or highly special investigations of
   single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern
   times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of
   knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most
   respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the
   origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen
   observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have
   attained a special proficiency, and in this department
   European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still
   learn something from them, as indeed they have already
   borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The
   information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of
   minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,
   and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and
   decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is
   valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally
   appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes
   up to us in some measure at least for the absence of
   investigations in the field of natural science. On the
   diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very
   special monographs.
{2124}
   For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science
   has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of
   the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are
   but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from
   the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,
   and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The
   influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first
   centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest
   significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable
   number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as
   Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding
   principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth
   century, it directly follows—just as in the case of
   astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem
   by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in
   the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al
   Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."

      _A. Weber,
      History of Indian Literature,
      pages 269-271._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Jewish.

   "If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians
   (Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x.
   11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23,
   etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to
   medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have
   understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with
   bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34),
   balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7),
   and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi.
   19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances
   respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well
   acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp.
   section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also
   may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in
   Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high
   antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians
   advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From
   the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much
   only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2
   Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal
   springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids.
   It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence
   of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by
   the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly
   with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing
   to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of
   charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."

      _C. F. Keil,
      Manual of Biblical Archæology,
      volume 2, pages 276-277._

   The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations
   of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs
   and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and
   fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to
   be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is
   advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding
   was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the
   Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil
   influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect
   of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of
   the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists
   divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture
   and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal.
   Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered.
   Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc.,
   are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may
   have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may
   be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some
   critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and
   dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease.
   Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed.
   Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the
   Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions
   were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach
   disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in
   nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad
   prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad
   dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from
   Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals
   provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however,
   recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first
   century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute.
   We find that dissection in the interests of science was
   permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the
   human skeleton."

      _E. Berdoe,
      The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
      book 2, chapter 2._

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   Greek.

   "It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess
   relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various
   treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of
   Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in
   all ages, and it has always been a question which has
   naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art
   had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It
   is clearly established that, long before the birth of
   philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully
   cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians
   that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the
   distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius
   and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as
   priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the
   treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by
   the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if
   one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much
   of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and
   that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by
   the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as
   receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those
   days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as
   they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What
   remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no
   means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the
   following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be
   pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the
   first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large
   proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of
   thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no
   doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his
   entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to
   purifications, and made to go through a regular course of
   bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the
   oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing.
{2125}
   Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also
   not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first
   prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be
   permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were
   brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could
   be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the
   sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature,
   accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their
   senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases,
   contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that
   the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and
   issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they
   became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The
   office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so
   that information thus acquired would be transmitted from
   father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to
   another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the
   great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of
   cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much
   disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that
   Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful
   cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned
   above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much
   higher repute than others, either from being possessed of
   peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the
   beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the
   temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial
   favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another
   rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was
   destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the
   background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the
   individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by
   the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was
   lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by
   his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a
   list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has
   been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the
   circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is
   known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate
   disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly
   that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger
   than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates
   took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly
   seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about
   the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader,
   then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable
   epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. …
   From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in
   one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then
   in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all
   the treasures of observations collected during many
   generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of
   assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus
   from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles
   of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. …
   Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as
   now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of
   his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done
   before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity,
   and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties
   of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him,
   cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all
   the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent
   the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when
   far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of
   Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon
   the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires
   and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to
   have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all
   its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may
   now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must
   admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine
   is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his
   descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient
   observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice
   are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of
   experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all
   others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience
   and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a
   rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the
   Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as
   belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with
   particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that
   is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. …
   One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the
   Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in
   it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete
   acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the
   patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice
   of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we
   would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the
   skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the
   head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His
   extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with
   the accidents occurring at the public games of his country,
   must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming
   acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and
   how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus
   enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On
   the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."

      _F. Adams,
      Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),
      section 1._

   "The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain
   theories which have been more or less prominent during the
   earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed
   throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and
   Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration
   of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for
   their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded
   as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by
   the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.
   e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it
   being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until
   thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.
{2126}
   This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital
   principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit
   (Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The
   gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of
   Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was
   regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union
   by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed
   'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or
   accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously
   watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it
   only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature
   sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,
   urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come
   to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,
   et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number
   of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was
   supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the
   septenary was also held in high consideration. … This
   doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical
   mind not yet fully eliminated."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

   "Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical
   practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless,
   introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it,
   which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people.
   Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb
   alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten
   with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the
   house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected
   likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a
   piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it
   preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too
   great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the
   intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the
   nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they
   were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the
   goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of
   their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which
   thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion.
   Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from
   enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or
   windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems
   of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the
   secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves
   of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb,
   in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might
   be the more easily transported to all parts of the country,
   was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of
   incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to
   reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from
   mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were
   likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while
   to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as
   well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of
   this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring,
   because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then
   supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were
   prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said
   to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples
   in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in
   less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was
   administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to
   diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the
   toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian
   olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy
   perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they
   suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of
   the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper,
   honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads
   without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to
   rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the
   yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed
   vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees
   or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an
   external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the
   powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed
   out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared
   with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who
   anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous
   reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries,
   boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the
   bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut
   against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion
   to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from
   sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were
   made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for,
   being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried
   figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its
   contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a
   valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh
   was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be
   used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers
   of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been
   manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The
   ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet.
   The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms
   was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water
   it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with
   benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of
   bulls' blood."

      _J. A. St. John,
      The Hellenes,
      book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

{2127}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:
   The Hippocratic Oath.

   "Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as
   Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been
   preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have
   received from antiquity:

   'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by
   Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil
   religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment,
   the solemn vow which I now make.

   I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of
   medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and
   teach them my profession without fee or reward.

   I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my
   master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical
   oath; but no one else.

   I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the
   cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment;
   and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.

   I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the
   honour of my art.

   I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to
   those to whose calling it belongs.

   Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole
   view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety
   towards the women of the family.

   If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that
   should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.

   If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and
   may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the
   contrary be my lot.'"

      _Ancient Physic and Physicians
      (Dublin University Magazine, April, 1856)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1st Century.
   Greek physicians in Rome.
   Pliny's Picture.

   Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time
   (first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says:
   "For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first
   illustration of the profits realized by the medical
   art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the
   sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many
   physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for
   instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who
   received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than
   250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he
   conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content
   with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an
   enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would
   bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000
   sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his
   brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they
   had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the
   public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than
   30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but
   Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose
   Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous
   connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and
   equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When
   established in public favour, he became the founder of a new
   sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the
   Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed
   into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the
   precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of
   frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what
   discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from
   a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb,
   which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name
   inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the
   Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse
   chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared
   in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a
   native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater
   discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the
   pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients
   in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as
   indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking
   observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was
   but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces,
   after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the
   walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while
   these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once,
   Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise.
   Not content with condemning the practice of preceding
   physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and
   persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse
   themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into
   large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common
   thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of
   parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour
   of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in
   writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that
   all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction
   of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright
   expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those
   consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one
   thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may
   have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence,
   too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was
   the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art,
   so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the
   change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by
   the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. …
   Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the
   first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of
   Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the
   City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states
   also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and
   that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public
   expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he
   received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was
   greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the
   cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients,
   he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art
   and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That
   such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of
   M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that
   but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he
   gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore,
   give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning
   those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length
   on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my
   own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to
   dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a
   thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and
   intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a
   prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall
   bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and
   that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They
   have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with
   their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in
   order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all
   the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling
   us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by
   giving us the abominable appellation of Opici.
{2128}
   I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato,
   who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in
   the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he
   had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with
   reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of
   his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has
   stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most
   useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one
   of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman
   gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few
   of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."

      _Pliny,
      Natural History
      (Bohn's translation),
      book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.
   Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.

   "In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their
   power of moving their own members, they probably had no
   thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was
   effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were
   seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed
   sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of
   the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a
   special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses
   were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected
   animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and
   complex collection of cordage, and communications of various
   kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton.
   These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles,
   nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to
   the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are
   attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this
   action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very
   obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is
   observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are
   inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical
   precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even
   Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of
   antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such
   an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this
   subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He
   is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves
   of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … ,
   but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him
   almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from
   remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who
   professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most
   part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract
   principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and
   profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of
   Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day,
   designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which
   arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of
   cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These
   rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt,
   during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in
   names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence
   of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of
   Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans
   acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon
   was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and
   physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to
   Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for
   Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a
   great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa
   in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the
   usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such
   accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that
   he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which
   professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and
   the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine,
   because, though I am not able to state distinctly their
   respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great
   progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their
   domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some
   way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are
   able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who
   flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The
   following passage from his works will show that this progress
   in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of
   laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious
   fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family
   tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of
   dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical
   Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not
   blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical
   manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was
   superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or
   others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by
   their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing
   and reading; so that there was no more fear of their
   forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet.
   But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this
   thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out
   of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated
   transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That
   the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of
   bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the
   time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and
   deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary
   to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an
   anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving
   the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors,
   and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the
   metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to
   Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the
   envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus
   Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them;
   but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by
   curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an
   of them of great value for the light they throw on the history
   of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the
   storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge
   which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual
   barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans
   of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned
   authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of
   independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that
   even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the
   senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth
   century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the
   hostility of the whole body of physicians."

      _W. Whewell,
      History of the Inductive Sciences,
      book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2)._

{2129}

   "Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of
   his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of
   Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on.
   Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic
   writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them,
   and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their
   adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one
   before me has given the true method of treating disease;
   Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as
   he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as
   he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction,
   and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients
   when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of
   complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what
   another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left
   it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies
   how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and
   how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held
   that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits,
   humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations
   Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism.
   Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought,
   eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible
   with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and
   Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three
   faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the
   irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational,
   which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids
   of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished
   between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the
   quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to
   yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine
   of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with
   Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement
   that diseases are cured by their contraries."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11th Centuries.
   Medical Art of the Arabs.

   "It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm
   that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science
   made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its
   founders), while, in opposition to the original relations,
   faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans.
   In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a
   verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more
   of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of
   civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their
   medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose
   medical writings were studied and copied mostly in
   translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in
   such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little
   matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and
   amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as
   those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans),
   exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an
   influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too
   into their medical views various philosophical theorems,
   especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the
   Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with
   portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they
   added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology
   and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they
   even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the
   papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian
   medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of
   development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards
   its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian
   foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the
   sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy,
   from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the
   profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of
   transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as
   follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia,
   including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of
   multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even
   at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by
   degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more
   evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish
   schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their
   foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at
   Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the
   Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in
   the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities
   was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the
   school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in
   Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of
   Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more
   influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians
   was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last
   so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot
   Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at
   the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested
   their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. …
   From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the
   time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian
   doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and
   of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period
   of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in
   the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was
   rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian
   universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in
   founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the
   progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad,
   Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara,
   Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides
   (909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031),
   after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning
   of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of
   Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000
   volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three
   caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem.
{2130}
   Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia,
   and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi
   dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco.
   In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no
   talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient
   Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and
   architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its
   foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el
   Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians
   to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina,
   Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of
   which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This
   work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions
   of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art,
   even as late as the first century of modern times."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 216-229._

   "The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to
   the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the
   functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases.
   Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of
   Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most
   formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art;
   the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation.
   He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments
   then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on
   females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the
   services of properly instructed women were secured. How
   different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the
   Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident,
   hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the
   Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his
   physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain,
   early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation
   of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical
   science and its practice, that he deserves the highest
   commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised
   this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis.
   Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his
   rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics,
   were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the
   publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or
   ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be
   medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously
   expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college
   of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the
   single specified function of rigidly examining into the
   assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise
   the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought
   professional employment as physicians in the numerous
   hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 17._

   "Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under
   Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement.
   As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections,
   they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the
   accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian
   writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this
   nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive
   fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the
   Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics
   made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab
   physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the
   introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and
   manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the
   drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them,
   also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as
   the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters,
   which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally,
   external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor
   additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but
   these additions were very far from compensating for the
   considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a
   multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      page 267._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17th Centuries.
   Mediæval Medicine.

   "The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be
   estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the
   clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious
   to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find
   this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when
   effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other
   clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of
   Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was
   actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having
   performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal
   favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a
   pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and
   exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church
   towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical
   science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides
   were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as
   they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some
   light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting
   by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and
   entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or
   physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.'
   The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.'
   'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the
   fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde,
   Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the
   hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a
   runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a
   depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which
   riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth
   He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the
   same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the
   right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man
   before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there
   are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth
   turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling,
   comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he
   may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede
   yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.'
{2131}
   This doctrine of like helping like was of universal
   application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet
   constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right
   eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it
   about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or
   bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the
   left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's
   heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be
   laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon
   the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent
   let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock,
   and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very
   terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him
   tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such
   creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the
   same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the
   quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under
   the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative
   merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is
   to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his
   necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax
   feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the
   neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them
   is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary
   for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a
   good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and
   they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a
   silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a
   toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as
   a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either
   frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged
   about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the
   disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking
   instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who
   could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by
   the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe
   hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen,
   whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig,
   have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse
   that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL
   crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."

      _E. A. King,
      Mediæval Medicine
      (Nineteenth Century, July 1893)._

   "If we survey the social and political state of Europe from
   the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the
   development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested
   by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of
   the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of
   civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were
   sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in
   Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were
   eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact
   number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities
   were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to
   those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics,
   during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the
   power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it
   is probable that the physicians occupied a high and
   influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes
   Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom
   were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty
   transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this
   period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since
   the Greek republics."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      chapter 5._

   "Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which
   extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological
   studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the
   chief medical school of the west."

      _G. F. Fort,
      Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 24._

   "In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially
   directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church
   abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should
   be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations
   in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed:
   and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who
   professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad
   enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by
   monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. …
   Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place
   of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places,
   by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the
   employment of regular professional aid had been unable to
   accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been
   greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the
   latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all
   kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of
   the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal
   constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body,
   and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia
   keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to
   governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the
   backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St.
   Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of
   Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus,
   Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St.
   Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others,
   which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This
   supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely
   exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from
   engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum.
   Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God,
   the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the
   fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the
   third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon
   Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph;
   the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to
   Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of
   the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to
   Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated
   to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of
   the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the
   Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the
   second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew,
   the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third
   finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the
   third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St.
   Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St.
   Philip. …
{2132}
   "The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly
   displayed than in the general belief afforded to the
   authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been
   effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems
   to have originated in an opinion that there is something
   sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his
   functions. … The practice appears to be one of English
   growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending
   only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the
   royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed
   the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was
   certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French
   historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of
   the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to
   Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to
   derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power
   to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that
   Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the
   sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through
   humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for
   the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement
   … by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the
   Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of
   nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was
   exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the
   reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that
   historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance
   of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the
   first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are
   to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any
   occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his
   predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch
   for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so
   persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with
   this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it
   all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the
   practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most
   in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration,
   and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the
   principal scene of its operation."

      _T. J. Pettigrew,
      Superstitions connected with the History and Practice
      of Medicine and Surgery,
      pages 34-37, and 117-121._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   Paracelsus.

   Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in
   history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in
   Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been
   very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and
   many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is
   simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been
   the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was
   acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He
   distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the
   former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived
   the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and
   recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He
   saw that in the organic system chemical processes are
   constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea
   from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of
   Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in
   medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles,
   he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles
   of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the
   greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it
   an essential part of medical education, and by showing that
   its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in
   pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the
   fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists
   and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more
   active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is
   merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may
   be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for
   intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in
   the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of
   antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the
   treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which
   he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his
   peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He
   showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for
   the diagnosis of disease."

      _J. W. Slater,
      Paracelsus
      (Imperial Dict. of Univ. Biog.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   The first English College of Physicians.

   "The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,
   when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a
   body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the
   reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of
   the most notable members of the profession resident in London,
   who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the
   interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of
   the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.
   The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the
   promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded
   and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to
   amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were
   Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,
   though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are
   constantly struck throughout the early history of the
   profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with
   almost every other branch of study than that strictly
   appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,
   magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and
   classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything
   worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed
   it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have
   been attained by the existence of the College as a
   professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary
   interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to
   the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most
   of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth
   century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported
   in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of
   the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of
   quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions
   of more regular members of the profession.
{2133}
   They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of
   the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's
   recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family
   doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of
   occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who
   undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his
   patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."

      _H. Hall,
      The Early Medicus
      (Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.
   The System of Van Helmont.

   John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year
   1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great
   possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of
   scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted
   with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from
   that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism.
   That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world
   in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that
   this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which
   submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of
   Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of
   philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them
   to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he
   devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the
   Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the
   prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an
   obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made
   over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that,
   'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set
   before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal
   of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the
   writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise
   of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and
   having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual
   manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to
   matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that
   Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the
   test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of
   Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar
   trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the
   itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this
   disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it
   is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit
   faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines,
   and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch
   followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was
   not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he
   could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore,
   to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out
   for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had
   devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual
   vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus.
   By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the
   world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the
   external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working
   upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a
   ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the
   growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither
   a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then
   supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of
   aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and
   cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid
   is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is
   the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization
   of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third
   takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes
   on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth
   consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital
   spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the
   preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ,
   during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself
   regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of
   the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word
   nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to
   accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by
   which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite
   consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action
   depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave
   rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions.
   Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it
   showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen
   that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited.
   There is no place for the elements and the humours."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      chapter 8._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

   William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation
   of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a
   house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and
   which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which
   Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish
   yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School,
   Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted
   a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He
   graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine,
   travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous
   school of physic of that time. … He returned to England,
   graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house
   in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4
   August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of
   Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th,
   and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street,
   near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the
   first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of
   the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures
   exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British
   Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of
   it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William
   Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The
   book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de
   Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains
   seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers
   evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting,
   and there are many misprints. …
{2134}
   He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the
   subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing
   with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that
   his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He
   then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of
   the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and
   the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming
   into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to
   the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the
   pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs,
   and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle.
   This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It
   is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing
   a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when
   the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of
   vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further,
   that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a
   ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the
   ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how
   the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and
   demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by
   Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no
   exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives
   diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and
   that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of
   blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart.
   After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he
   further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and
   points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all
   over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of
   the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out
   that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it
   has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while
   the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This
   great and original book at once attracted attention and
   excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London,
   where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every
   year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it
   deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less
   favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest
   that the discovery was to be found in other writers. …
   Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted
   throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to
   whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is
   sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his
   views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine
   as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration
   obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete
   absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and
   course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others
   who have been suggested as possible originals of the
   discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the
   discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to
   Harvey."

      _N. Moore,
      Harvey
      (Dict. of National Biog., volume 25)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Willis,
      William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of
      the Circulation of the Blood._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Discovery of the Lymphatic Circulation.

   "The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was
   scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the
   blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the
   work of one man, but was a matter of slow development.
   Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected
   with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and
   had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed
   this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the
   veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had
   described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli,
   professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels
   in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating.
   Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid
   issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he
   became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew
   the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with
   which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all
   meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In
   1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier,
   discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the
   canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he
   followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein.
   Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself
   above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,
   and convinced himself that they all entered into the common
   reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient
   theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood
   making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like
   it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough,
   Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent,
   Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of
   Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic
   vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were
   investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch,
   the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the
   first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic
   apparatus."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.

   "The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient,
   physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism
   to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers
   physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses
   that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first
   person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology,
   who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital
   phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world,
   are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion
   was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most
   original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both
   sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger
   contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in
   acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his
   great discovery.
{2135}
   In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as
   propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full
   account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la
   Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after
   the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from
   Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in
   passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always
   speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the
   subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité
   des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to
   see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance
   for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic
   and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in
   the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes
   withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and
   meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. …
   Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term
   'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its
   only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the
   body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take
   place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the
   principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes'
   'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a
   bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life,
   except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a
   mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the
   heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been
   supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical
   theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he
   held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of
   the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,'
   says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains
   little that is very useful; but without any desire to
   depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among
   professional men, who will not declare that all we know is
   very little as compared with that which remains to be known;
   and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind,
   no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness
   of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and
   of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So
   strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved
   to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a
   knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a
   better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material
   for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher;
   and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years
   which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and
   the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their
   realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in
   physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid
   down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the
   seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,'
   is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes'
   fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the
   physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority
   dominated in the medical world of the first half of the
   eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and
   of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth
   century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of
   which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the
   physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress
   which has been made in the present century is a justification
   of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially,
   in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs
   of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall
   try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that
   it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul
   produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to
   think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show
   the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately
   taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on
   physiology."

      _T. H. Huxley,
      Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine
      (Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Introduction of Peruvian Bark.

   "The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one
   locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian
   bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of
   itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down
   from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is
   mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by
   Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable,
   nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of
   Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of
   Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and
   the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,'
   indicates that it was believed to possess some special
   medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis
   Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth
   Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an
   intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her
   illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the
   Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the
   febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the
   Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician,
   Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. …
   The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of
   1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark
   which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the
   healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst
   the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became
   known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's
   powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to
   druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service
   to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus
   named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona.
   Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the
   name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted
   for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess
   through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled,
   Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting
   one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of
   Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the
   introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent
   parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was
   distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by
   Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great
   success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's
   bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the
   Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed
   by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis
   XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert
   Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large
   pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to
   have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for
   intermittent fevers."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peruvian Bark,
      chapters 2-4._

{2136}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Sydenham, the Father of Rational Medicine.

   "Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of
   practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as
   genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did
   for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main,
   observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would
   not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these
   two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of
   health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the
   first in their respective regions to show their faith in the
   inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be
   more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and
   servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of
   Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of
   errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he
   was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its
   height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and
   stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this
   in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of
   independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all
   that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was
   involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did.
   'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends,
   1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or
   history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying
   down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the
   history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking
   deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be
   attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects
   of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by
   botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the
   same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically
   different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or
   thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would
   be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a
   generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of
   distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit
   into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to
   suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the
   disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of
   physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural
   history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis
   should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena,
   however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The
   usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as
   compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of
   modern writers. … If only one person in every age had
   accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single
   disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where
   it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method
   of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes,
   insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the
   art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His
   friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or
   sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this
   necessity for watching the action of compound and often
   opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a
   machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but
   where each organism has often much that is different from, as
   well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes
   medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it
   into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and
   practical engineering, in all of which, though there are
   principles, and those principles quite within the scope of
   human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in
   the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and
   judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to
   over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the
   writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have
   made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent
   generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius,
   Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the
   father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to
   his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and
   serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non
   fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut
   faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical
   nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he
   did, without possessing and often exercising the true
   philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of
   mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in
   whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with
   them a means rather than an end."

      _Dr. John Brown,
      Locke and Sydenham and other Papers,
      pages 54-90._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Sydenham,
      Works;
      translated by R. G, Latham._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.
   Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.
   The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.

   "If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall
   find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident
   with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid
   constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle
   of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of
   disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the
   original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine
   the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids,
   contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle
   of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the
   history of medicine is divided into three great periods.
   During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet
   disentangled from each other; this period extends from the
   origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second
   comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval
   between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine
   of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches
   to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally
   expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine.
{2137}
   Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed
   to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the
   causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded
   learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly
   bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential
   alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to
   the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism
   are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this
   hypothesis during that long interval encountered no
   opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction
   among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration
   of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert,
   attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have
   stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however,
   all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous
   speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious
   influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were
   denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying
   that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the
   organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the
   bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on
   the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted
   into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons
   operated through the corruption they thus effected in the
   vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind
   subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted
   attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain.
   The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine,
   and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the
   phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere
   accidents, were slumped together under some collective name,
   and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By
   supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association
   and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity,
   coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal
   periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the
   morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its
   deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the
   part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature
   gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the
   third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated
   by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium
   restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the
   morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable
   elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its
   deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or
   imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another
   was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the
   noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed
   them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of
   inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in
   dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were
   simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in
   general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity
   of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of
   the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew
   the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part
   of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and
   cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered,
   with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia
   were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic
   was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids.
   Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period
   of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many
   purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed
   to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion,
   still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of
   many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal
   practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador,
   whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely
   idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a
   specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this
   theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred
   cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen
   centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine
   cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the
   correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the
   crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical
   hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward
   the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic
   Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The
   first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same
   year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both
   professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle;
   the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and
   long an ornament of the University of Leyden."

      _Sir W. Hamilton,
      Discussions on Philosophy and Literature,
      pages 246-249._

   "The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a
   medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having
   perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his
   predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the
   Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not
   in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of
   the animal functions in the human economy, and more
   particularly in his application of this doctrine to the
   explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann …
   to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only
   as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common
   centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy
   are connected together, and through which they mutually
   influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all
   those alterations in the structure and functions of this
   economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having
   their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and
   as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the
   imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather
   than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the
   fluid parts of the body."

      _J. Thomson,
      Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,
      pages 195-196._

{2138}

   "George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of
   medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia
   (1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,'
   explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to
   get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to
   Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to
   the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author
   of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has
   had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a
   substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible
   matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound
   was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to
   Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers
   upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself
   endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the
   noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not
   consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though
   he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by
   the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited
   to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made.
   Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of
   the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and
   refusing to continue longer the struggle against the
   derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant
   treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting
   to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they
   administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to
   nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of
   invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which
   error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing
   bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the
   class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."

      _E. Berdoe,
      The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,
      book 5, chapter 7._

   "The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it
   lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the
   ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything
   better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made
   one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with
   the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of
   the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was
   not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his
   practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except
   that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his
   reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no
   doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the
   remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His
   greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the
   energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as
   powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in
   the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical
   excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the
   day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the
   alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On
   these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and
   an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all
   fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find
   that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to
   the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted
   that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as
   well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already
   almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known;
   Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the
   founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He
   simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries
   of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began
   therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed
   away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who
   succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his
   turn, was soon to be displaced by others."

      _J. R. Russell,
      History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,
      pages 297-298._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
   Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.
   First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.

   "Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus
   corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new
   theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange,
   the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the
   preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that
   the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were
   the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a
   'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward
   to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were
   Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of
   Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in
   his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was
   able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope
   that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make
   his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he
   was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series
   of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of
   his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The
   world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly
   invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful
   physicians of the time believed that at last they had found
   the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing
   Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these
   newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to
   its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ
   theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that
   air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk
   were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of
   smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very
   rife about this period, were the result of the activity of
   these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction
   did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial
   treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the
   supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of
   disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial
   salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the
   result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the
   dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of
   invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and
   forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could
   be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable
   result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable'
   worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule;
   and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which
   these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,'
   'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist';
   the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and
   the germ theory of disease completely discredited.
{2139}
   Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of
   observation and deduction, considered that it was possible
   that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living
   beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and
   examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only
   the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of
   acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both
   fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all
   workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus'
   observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz.
   … He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific
   character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for
   scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed
   which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was
   possible for this organism to become disseminated through the
   air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the
   incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the
   growth of a germ within the body during the period after its
   introduction, when its presence had not yet been made
   manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated
   Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in
   putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process
   was the result of the development, multiplication, and
   carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by
   these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile
   salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by
   forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they
   developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as
   it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could
   not then be based on any very extensive or detailed
   observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and
   brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in
   accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the
   causes of disease and fermentation processes."

      _G. S. Woodhead,
      Bacteria and their Products,
      chapter 3._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.
   Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.

   Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called
   "Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He
   studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784
   he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In
   the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica
   out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the
   insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure
   of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a
   large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the
   healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the
   symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the
   reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to
   produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague.
   To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the
   records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single
   remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he
   advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published
   in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new
   principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form
   of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate
   his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a
   strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave
   relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his
   symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains,
   to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus
   introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied
   his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and
   finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that
   disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give
   this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet
   fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for
   this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work,
   entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into
   all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this
   book he fully expounded his new system, which he called
   Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica,
   consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon
   persons in health. These works were published between the
   years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school,
   and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the
   administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in
   doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the
   apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the
   patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company
   brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to
   dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was
   obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen,
   appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at
   Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and
   there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new
   volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he
   married a second time; his wife was a French lady of
   considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen,
   and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till
   his death, which took place in the year 1843."

      _W. Bayes,
      Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy
      (Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society
      of the State of New York, 1869, article 21)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Aneke,
      History of Homœopathy._

      _J. C. Burnett,
      Ecce Medicus;
      or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The work of John Hunter in surgery and anatomy.

   "John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the
   most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he
   is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one
   of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the
   most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—
   indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his
   century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism
   by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and
   without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the
   rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having
   experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the
   method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os
   unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His
   anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst
   others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,
   which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.
{2140}
   He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic
   vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches
   of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;
   and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the
   descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen
   into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many
   new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time
   surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat
   dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter
   first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar
   excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and
   progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments
   than those who had before practised it to make it their
   study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,
   is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,
   and which he made, too, when labouring under every
   disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It
   shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no
   superior."

      _W. Baird,
      Hunter (The Imperial dictionary of universal biography)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. D. Gross,
      John Hunter and his Pupils._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   Preventive Inoculation against Smallpox.

   "One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for
   that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction
   of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against
   small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely
   due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often
   allowed to think it without being necessarily taught
   otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The
   communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order
   to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words,
   the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches
   back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as
   then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured
   from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place
   selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched
   with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked
   in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred
   Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most
   hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good
   results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was
   known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before
   Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young
   children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The
   Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did
   the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions
   were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes
   inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In
   Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been
   naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the
   art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first
   accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by
   Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual
   introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due
   to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was
   wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had
   her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland,
   and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed
   upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were
   undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out
   favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated
   by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted
   on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered
   occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and
   there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially,
   using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back
   up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination,
   and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine
   prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester
   recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for
   inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the
   operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a
   little later came into vogue."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   Jenner and the discovery of Vaccination.

   Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed
   the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the
   milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that
   disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar
   rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one
   had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was
   accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a
   youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was
   arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who
   came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was
   mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for
   I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted
   Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and
   making observations on the subject. His professional friends,
   to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues
   of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him
   from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the
   subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John
   Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The
   advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:
   'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's
   courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to
   him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back
   to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to
   make observations and experiments, which he continued to
   pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his
   discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on
   three several occasions. At length he published his views in a
   quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of
   twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,
   to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the
   smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798
   that this treatise was published; though he had been working
   out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to
   assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First
   with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to
   London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination
   and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be
   got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for
   nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.
{2141}
   He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to
   'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their
   systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was
   one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced
   from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that
   vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke
   out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance
   was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice
   into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a
   truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition
   belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman
   tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who
   permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,
   and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of
   doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of
   Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage
   to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day
   were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually
   came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.
   Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance
   came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and
   he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was
   as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to
   settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of
   £10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my
   days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of
   life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the
   evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as
   an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime
   the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the
   civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of
   his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If
   vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve
   to render it illustrious forever."

      _S. Smiles,
      Self-help,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Barron,
      Life of Edward Jenner._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The Brunonian System of Stimulation.

   "John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick,
   in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an
   extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided
   inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and
   manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned
   theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh.
   … He was particularly entertained and countenanced by
   Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of
   preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted
   during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose
   characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling
   matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and
   changed the old friendship which had united them into an
   irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year
   1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements
   of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his
   master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance,
   but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in
   which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but
   none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system
   receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it
   afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and
   vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only
   sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action
   of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded
   the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of
   fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with
   hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The
   Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological
   states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he
   names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want,
   more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates
   as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two
   states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ
   in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two
   genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local
   lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to
   consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in
   a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the
   asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections.
   According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken
   if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature.
   … Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory)
   had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice
   of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch
   pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To
   this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and
   practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of
   being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of
   imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But
   this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its
   application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been
   able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of
   diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a
   part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and
   the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which
   man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of
   Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English
   society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown
   made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."

      _P. V. Renouard,
      History of Medicine,
      pages 555-560._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.
   The System of Haller.

   "About the time when we seniors commenced the study of
   medicine, it was still under the influence of the important
   discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on
   the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in
   connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.
   Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles
   of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,
   that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,
   thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had
   always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular
   contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as
   regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the
   strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common
   name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve
   the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus
   the excitability, which was lost at death.
{2142}
   This entire condition of things, which physically speaking
   asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which
   take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly
   unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the
   fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly
   transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for
   which there was no similar justification. It was believed that
   none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an
   impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were
   considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity
   seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific
   energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.
   Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category
   under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and
   from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment
   should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and
   the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once
   worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the
   leading points of view."

      _H. Helmholtz,
      On Thought in Medicine
      (Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th. Century.
   Physiological Views of Bichat.

   Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in
   1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and
   physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar
   physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or
   less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his
   that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of
   this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so
   far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of
   pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to
   have been founded upon and connected with the principles of
   physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living
   bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their
   destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily
   yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of
   reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is
   therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of
   functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however,
   does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by
   some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez,
   &c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of
   other matter, and refer the operations performed in living
   systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to,
   in the same way that we do the operations taking place among
   inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that
   there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of
   vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection
   of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action,
   combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that
   the result is a series of functions, the connected performance
   of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of
   life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in
   carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable
   modifications of life, as considered in different relations,
   one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar
   to animals. … Those which we have in common with the
   vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual,
   bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life,
   because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the
   other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are
   superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are
   called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking,
   then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us
   to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to
   the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally
   necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The
   two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs
   by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal
   life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted
   with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of
   those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS
   either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in
   structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median
   dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided
   into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that
   line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary,
   present a picture totally different; they are irregularly
   formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the
   form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the
   functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions
   of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no
   interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the
   case is widely different. They have intervals of entire
   repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant
   activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest.
   This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep
   of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his
   theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep
   of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state,
   but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in
   proportion to the number of organs which require repose. …
   The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being
   much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the
   principal and most important feature in the physiological
   system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive
   explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the
   principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not
   always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has
   been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be
   sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the
   performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers
   of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been
   somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with
   some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life
   were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in
   health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and
   operation."

      _J. Ware,
      Life and Writings of Bichat
      (North American Review, July, 1822)._

{2143}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.
   Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.

   Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an
   alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of
   superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of
   200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but
   entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the
   physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a
   diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign
   countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years
   had been appointed by the French government to report on the
   condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming
   the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in
   chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of
   years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and
   even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and
   decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very
   different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal
   after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without
   delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities
   tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the
   physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to
   accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no
   sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly
   exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir
   déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be
   deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project,
   and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been
   gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may
   appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous,
   and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was
   afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel.
   The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an
   establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the
   Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no
   more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted
   and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the
   ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous
   fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came
   to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a
   terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring
   every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide
   with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted
   with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in
   different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of
   suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was
   declared to be a State necessity."

      _W. P. Letchworth,
      The Insane in Foreign Countries,
      chapter 1._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Discovery of Anæsthetics.

   "In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a
   surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and
   power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that
   he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the
   'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been
   established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal
   effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his
   apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself
   to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects,
   but much more in all their chemical and physical relations.
   After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical
   and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He
   wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its
   extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical
   pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical
   operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.'
   It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as
   this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little
   general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been
   for the strange and various excitements produced by its
   inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical
   lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical
   theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the
   gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it
   there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received
   sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And
   this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing
   worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December
   1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry,
   delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford,
   Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an
   enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in
   mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual
   amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing
   had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to
   make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men
   excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when
   he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even
   when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he
   did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once
   convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific
   mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a
   state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn
   without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his
   own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning
   Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted
   his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then
   exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me
   more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery
   ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from
   some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the
   nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs,
   also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well
   known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success
   Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his
   discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some
   one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the
   senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom
   he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its
   effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He
   undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college
   before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a
   previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas
   from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon;
   he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and
   hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells
   left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and
   was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon
   afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and
   study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a
   discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the
   history of nitrous oxide may be broken here.
{2144}
   The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last
   century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis,
   and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric
   ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned
   by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it
   came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and
   by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus
   used by young people in many places in the United States. They
   had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had
   joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson,
   South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was
   unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be
   dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed
   the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that
   neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr.
   Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson
   County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils
   often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr.
   Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he
   often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by
   chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed
   the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened
   by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after
   an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the
   ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of
   an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before
   Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr.
   Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale
   it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour
   from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three
   months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him;
   and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three
   patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and
   talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only
   that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of
   his observations. … He waited to test the ether more
   thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he
   had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account
   of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more
   actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown,
   not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit
   to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and
   of the great discovery which he believed that he had made,
   were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a
   restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get
   practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific
   gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a
   chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's
   visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short
   time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy
   at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in
   Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any
   faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in
   the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that
   tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had
   long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being
   inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those
   of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy
   for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself
   used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it,
   he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think
   that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain
   in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific
   friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not
   urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial.
   One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist,
   called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge,
   and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson
   advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On
   that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled
   the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found
   that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he
   tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient;
   and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced
   him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth
   without his having the least consciousness of what was done.
   But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right
   to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough
   for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that
   in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it
   really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to
   let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to
   think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who
   were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known.
   The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton
   gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General
   Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The
   result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the
   pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was
   being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by
   Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt
   nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of
   danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed
   complete; for the trials of the next following days had the
   same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended
   over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said
   that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery
   was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be
   named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and
   after which it was painless."

      _Sir J. Paget,
      Escape from Pain
      (Nineteenth Century, December 1879)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Study of Fermentation and its results.

   "It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic
   diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which
   consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that
   when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs,
   skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the
   destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a
   power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little
   leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of
   matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being
   apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay.
   Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner
   within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was
   given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour
   discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when
   placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself,
   and in this way carries on the process which we name
   fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was
   connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered
   the yeast-plant independently about the same time."

      _J. Tyndall,
      Fragments of Science,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

{2145}

   The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely
   new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that
   yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types
   of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable
   fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of
   that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a
   jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the
   jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and
   reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who
   had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea
   altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be
   a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any
   real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz,
   then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping
   the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a
   fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids;
   and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference
   that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material
   of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a
   doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight
   its way for some time against the whole force of chemical
   authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a
   set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to
   determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely
   necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in
   decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free
   from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would
   presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them
   might bring in from without, such as passing it through a
   red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it
   should be said, had reference rather to the question of
   'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause
   of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to
   determine whether the living things found by the microscope in
   a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs
   brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the
   act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders.
   But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the
   recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation,
   gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results;
   suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition
   may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of
   atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a
   new arrangement of elements brought about by the development
   of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at
   this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its
   subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to
   him: for although other investigators—notably Professor
   Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by
   ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be
   the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which
   have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a
   few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by
   Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these
   doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was
   made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur
   by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent
   Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was
   threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and
   Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the
   foundation of an entirely new system and method of research
   into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man
   and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to
   see the important issues. Among the most immediately
   productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic
   surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the
   careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike
   from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such
   as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by
   accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion
   is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills
   the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the
   saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already
   brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious
   triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the
   germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has
   been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon
   opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of
   'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity
   of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the
   last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific
   physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect
   produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison
   (such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera,
   typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of
   thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised
   speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really
   organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,'
   when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite
   'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is
   reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of
   yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this
   question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."

      _W. B. Carpenter,
      Disease-Germs
      (Nineteenth Century, October, 1881)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Pasteur,
      Studies in Fermentation._

      _Dr. Duclaux,
      Fermentation._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   Virchow and Cellular Pathology.

   "That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and
   attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known
   as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific
   medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the
   previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital
   force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout
   the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an
   indefinite number of associate vital forces working
   harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary
   principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle
   has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the
   characteristics of life.
{2146}
   The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any
   determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,
   but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each
   element present. Hence it results that the composition of a
   large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which
   each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent
   upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a
   special activity of its own, and that each, although it
   receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,
   still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen
   is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to
   which most medical men are now committed, which means that our
   bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity
   and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered
   plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown
   discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the
   microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between
   anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a
   'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed
   the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th
   and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate
   validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement
   most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to
   nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even
   its author was almost startled with its success. … As a
   result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what
   has been called the medical school of natural sciences of
   which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks
   mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,
   experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied
   sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an
   exact science."

      _Roswell Park,
      Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.)._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The development of Bacteriology.

   "The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more
   precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen
   Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the
   contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living
   organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are
   forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living
   beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we
   should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For
   the only general distinction between their mode of appearance
   and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites
   with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia
   have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is
   shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the
   contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without
   magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only
   a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion,
   which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as
   the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the
   caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and
   similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of
   the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very
   remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked.
   Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle
   Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to
   examine, his views on animal pathology met with little
   attention or approval. It was in connection with
   plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to
   further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true
   that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases
   of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but
   made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which
   had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of
   the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path
   indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about
   the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all
   infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting
   cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are
   due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted
   that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom,
   partly because the structure of plants makes them more
   accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites
   which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than
   most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time
   observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly
   influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and
   partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory
   of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to
   Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the
   exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of
   comparison between his own theory and the theory of
   fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and
   Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of
   Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods
   first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal
   suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the
   exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of
   an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in
   so far as it originates, as has been said, in
   anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important
   confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small
   parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was
   recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much
   further advance was made. … The latest advance to be
   recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the
   work of research since 1876."

      _A. De Bary,
      Lectures on Bacteria,
      pages 145-148._

   "M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare
   individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having
   commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction
   as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical
   process of fermentations to give his attention to the
   phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling
   fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental
   characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid
   path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural
   connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to
   select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to
   the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful
   practical issue in a large number of instances.
{2147}
   Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy
   from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to
   quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous
   improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has
   rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease
   'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert
   that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered
   hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this
   remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their
   application and disposed of them according to commercial
   principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a
   gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …
   M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was
   made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the
   mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that
   disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was
   necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most
   elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing
   knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what
   passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."

      _E. R. Lankester,
      The Advancement of Science,
      pages 121-123._

   "The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria,
   stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous
   generation and by the demonstration that various processes of
   fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of
   this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods
   of research. Among the most important points in the
   development of bacteriological technique we may mention first,
   the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854);
   second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods
   perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the
   aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert
   in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and
   the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in
   1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and
   especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's
   'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures,
   have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a
   distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first
   demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of
   this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax
   bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this
   disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it
   was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer
   claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the
   causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question.
   The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as
   conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood
   containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had
   succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was
   associated with material from the body of the diseased animal.
   This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of
   Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the
   bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects
   as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood
   of an infected animal."

      _G. M. Sternberg,
      Manual of Bacteriology,
      page 6._

   "In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau,
   was in London, and he then handed me a number of his
   'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever
   (Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to
   mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With
   admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up
   the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this
   fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician
   holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau,
   and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the
   time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position.
   When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary
   Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the
   parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had
   observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals
   which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite
   unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for
   thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the
   matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to
   the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then
   pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was
   opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions
   followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with
   the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur
   took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the
   paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of
   inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid
   results."

      _J. Tyndall,
      New Fragments,
      pages 190-191._

   "On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public
   import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological
   Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The
   Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself
   known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness
   of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic
   fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in
   point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he
   says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number
   of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have
   hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must
   stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then
   follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths
   of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch
   it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was
   communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to
   determine the precise character of the contagium which
   previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved
   to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He
   subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and
   animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,
   the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which
   by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the
   surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree
   impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the
   minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,
   by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals
   to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.
   To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but
   some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,
   that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli
   artificially for long periods of time and through many
   successive generations.
{2148}
   With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human
   lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by
   himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.
   In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the
   new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith
   fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.
   Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this
   way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the
   process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations
   extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were
   introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various
   kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the
   reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of
   the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is
   obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch
   could the true character of the most destructive malady by
   which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however
   noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of
   Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact
   cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the
   light and leading of such investigations as that which is here
   so imperfectly described."

      _J. Tyndall,
      New Fragments,
      pages 423-428._

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   The Theory of Germ Diseases.

   "An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in
   this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views
   on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass
   of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent
   theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One
   fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower
   fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases
   (infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these
   parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory,
   these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its
   nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in
   the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for
   existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life
   by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons
   (ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L.
   Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by
   Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act
   differently upon bodies according to the variety of the
   alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white
   blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus
   explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and
   in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other
   hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the
   Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the
   first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or
   germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent
   exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A.
   Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the
   probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted
   the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence.
   Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by
   continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy)
   'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the
   corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has
   confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a
   view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief
   diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are:
   anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873);
   gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders
   (Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm.
   Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs);
   typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera
   (Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger
   in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs);
   erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial
   fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema
   (Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub
   assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen;
   priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire
   of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been
   discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of
   the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior);
   scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina
   (Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the
   liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler);
   hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler);
   keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler);
   gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial
   theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such
   numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be
   looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte
   Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is
   adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it
   brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these
   infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's
   cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the
   white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround,
   hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus
   render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. …
   The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the
   theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are
   prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of
   similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled
   thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the
   body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless.
   Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of
   the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious
   diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would
   by analogy be explained on the theory that with such
   individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted
   that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which
   come within their domain by immediately devouring them. …
   When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of
   infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the
   excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great
   that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring'
   them all."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 1007-1009._

{2149}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.
   Sanitary Science and Legislation.

   "Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of
   disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind
   of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene
   which is now promising to transform all the old traditional
   ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the
   organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of
   hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of
   the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the
   beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician
   of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the
   formation of a central board of health to organise common
   measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until
   more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence
   of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so
   that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic
   is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick
   issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring
   Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked
   effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era
   of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed
   to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus
   just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal
   Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of
   public health to a State interest; and a few years later
   (1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed
   the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848
   another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of
   Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began
   those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of
   the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by
   the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked
   the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the
   objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation
   became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of
   notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics
   enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new
   possibilities in the prevention of human misery."

      _H. Ellis,
      The Nationalisation of Health,
      pages 21-24._

   "Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary
   code so complete and so precise as England. In addition,
   English legislation is distinguished from that of other
   countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate
   from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders.
   Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has
   recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the
   laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed,
   without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the
   marvellous results which have been produced can be seen.
   Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered,
   the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness
   decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the
   houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a
   better prospect of recovering their health and the means of
   providing for their subsistence and that of their families.
   … The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance
   with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central
   authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities,
   the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board
   consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the
   following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy
   Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time
   being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a
   Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The
   President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the
   directors of the Local Government Board, the other members
   being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine
   special departments are controlled by the Local Government
   Board:

      1. Poor-law administration.
      2. Legal questions.
      3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings.
      4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc.
      5. Medical and hygienic matters.
      6. Vaccination.
      7. The Hygiene of factories.
      8. The water supply of London.
      9. Statistics.

   Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a
   Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."

      _A. Palmberg,
      Treatise on Public Health: England,
      chapter 1._

   "The United States have no uniform legislation for the
   organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State
   organizes this service as it chooses. … That which
   characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the
   fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted
   to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices
   the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a
   similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little
   less independence, and it is the logical result of the general
   system of administration which exists in the American Union.
   … Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of
   Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the
   States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the
   American Union."

      _E. Sève,
      On the General Organization of Public Hygiene
      (Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881)._

   "The General Government [of the United States] can do little
   in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere
   with the action of the several States to control their own
   sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power
   to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some
   general system of quarantine and do something toward the
   prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could
   probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as
   would make its action of little practical value, unless,
   indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and
   become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which
   its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General
   Government can properly create an organization for the purpose
   of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;
   but comparatively few understand how much real power and
   influence such an organization might acquire without having
   the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its
   recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the
   granting to a certain department the power to enforce these
   laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at
   large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do
   this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The
   General Government might do much to promote the formation of
   such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By
   the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or
   contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a
   national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first
   step has been taken in the direction above indicated.
{2150}
   The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of
   seven members, appointed by the President, and of four
   officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,
   Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital
   Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No
   definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being
   essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board
   are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the
   public health, to advise the several departments of the
   government, the executives of the several States, and the
   Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions
   submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board
   such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of
   the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a
   plan for a national public health organization in conjunction
   with the National Academy of Sciences."

      _J. S. Billings,
      Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"
      edited by A. IL Buck._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Simon,
      English Sanitary Institutions_

      _Sir J. Simon,
      Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer
      of the Privy Council and Local Government Board._

      _United States National Board of Health, Annual Reports._

      _Massachusetts Board of Health, Annual Reports._

   ----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: End----------

MEDICI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and after.

   ----------MEDINA: Start--------

MEDINA: the City of the Prophet.

   By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D.
   622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was
   henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of
   the Prophet."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Studies in a Mosque,
      chapter 2._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MEDINA: A. D. 661.
   The Caliphate transferred.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

MEDINA: A. D. 683.
   Stormed and sacked.

   In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the
   second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed
   by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every
   imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The
   inhabitants who survived were made slaves.

      _Sir W. Muir,
      Annals of the Early Caliphate,
      chapter 50._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Mahomet and his Successors,
      volume 2, chapter 47._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

   ----------MEDINA: End----------

MEDINA DEL RIO SECO, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MEDIOLANUM.

   Modern Milan. Taken by the Romans in 222 B. C. from the
   Insubrian Gauls.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MEDIOMATRICI.

   The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had
   been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.

MEDISM.
MEDIZED GREEKS.

   During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former
   had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the
   latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their
   treason went by the name of Medism.

MEDITERRANEAN FUND.

   A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in
   1803, for the War with Tripoli.

      _H. Adams,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

MEDITERRANEAN SEA:
   When named.

   "For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because
   it had so long been practically the only one known to them;
   and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our'
   Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in
   like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a
   convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term.
   … The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a
   proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."

      _E: H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 21, section 1,
      chapter 23, section 2, foot-note,
      chapter 31 (volume 2)._

MEERUT, The Sepoy mutiny at.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY).

MEGALESIA, The.

      See LUDI.

  ----------MEGALOPOLIS: Start--------

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 371.
   The founding of the city.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 317.
   Defense against Polysperchon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 222.
   Destruction and restoration.

   The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with
   the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before
   the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis,
   B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore
   their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They
   refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration
   was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the
   inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again,
   though never with its former importance.

      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book 2, chapter 55 and after (volume 1)._

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 194-183.
   In the Achaian League.

   "The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the
   same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of
   Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without
   any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the
   character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city
   of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest
   proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like
   Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of
   Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia
   produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she
   produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos
   and Diophanes."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 9, section 2._

  ----------MEGALOPOLIS: End--------

  ----------MEGARA: Start--------

MEGARA.

   Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay
   between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian
   isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the
   Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a
   dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at
   first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa,
   Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred
   population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes
   distracted by quarrels. …

      See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

   Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early
   subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and
   that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent
   Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its
   leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some
   powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean
   consideration, possessing a territory which extended across
   Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified
   town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was
   situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and
   competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted
   contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis;
   wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was
   not without an intermediate period of ill-success and
   despair."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 9._

      See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{2151}

MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.
   Struggle with Athens for Salamis.
   Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

MEGARA: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Athens in war with Corinth and Ægina.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

MEGARA: B. C. 446-445.
   Rising against Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

MEGARA: B. C. 431-424.
   Athenian invasions and ravages.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 431.

MEGARA: B. C. 339-338.
   Resistance to Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

  ----------MEGARA: End--------

MEGARA OF CARTHAGE, The.

      See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS.

MEGIDDO.

   The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great
   Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the
   valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the
   course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important
   battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth
   Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met
   there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of
   Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his
   yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he
   took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple
   at Karnak.

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

   It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of
   the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the
   Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites
   was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the
   same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians
   the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the
   name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the
   Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with
   them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and
   died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo,
   Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of
   Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The
   plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of
   ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as
   the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon
   in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient
   city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present
   town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station
   of a Roman legion.

MEGISTANES, The.

   "The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised
   by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own
   nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office,
   entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave,
   … or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House;
   the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the
   temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and
   the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted
   the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged
   class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled
   the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house
   of the Arsacidæ."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 6._

MEHDI, AL.

      See MAHDI, AL.

MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
      and EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

MEHERRINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH

MEIGS, Fort, Sieges of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813
      HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MELBOURNE MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837; and 1841-1842.

MELCHITES.

   A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th
   century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the
   orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or
   royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

MELDÆ, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of
   the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a
   small part of the department of the Oise.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2)._

MELIAN FAMINE.

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELIGNANO,
MARIGNANO, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MELISCEET INDIANS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MELORIA, Battles of (1241 and 1284).

      See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

MELOS: Siege, conquest and massacre by the Athenians:

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELUN, Siege of.

   One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the
   English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 1, chapters 226-230 (volume 1)._

MEMLUKS.

      See MAMELUKES.

  ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Egypt.

   The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian
   history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the
   first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which
   the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the
   founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south.
   Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis,
   or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy
   predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first
   act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was
   on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing
   over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark
   against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a
   few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river
   into the present course, founding the city on the west bank,
   with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city
   received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient
   founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect
   Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is
   the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also
   found in the form Noph."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

{2152}

MEMPHIS: A. D. 640-641.
   Surrender to the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.


  ----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: End--------

  ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1739-1740.
   A French fort on the site.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
   Naval fight in the river.
   Surrender of the city to the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

  ----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: End--------

MENAPII, The.

   See BELGÆ;
   also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MENDICANT ORDERS.
   Franciscans.
   Dominicans.

   "This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions
   of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a
   species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic
   than that which we have just treated [the military-religious
   orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to
   call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew
   wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on
   every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was
   taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into
   practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual
   endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his
   own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest
   friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman,
   was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old
   Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his
   studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by
   a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of
   Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to
   the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own
   heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he
   made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in
   charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit
   of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed
   a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently
   been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten
   years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only
   for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome,
   in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope
   Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method
   of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative
   life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest.
   … Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided
   he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules.
   Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine,
   introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity,
   taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the
   members of the new order might be free to devote themselves
   entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to
   accept any property requiring their active administration, but
   were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was
   administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by
   the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope
   Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious
   predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year,
   giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars
   Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). …
   Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns.
   … The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and
   scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a
   black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a
   wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182,
   in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from
   his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his
   youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the
   Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he
   fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack,
   gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him
   to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life.
   … He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose
   members should go about through the whole world, after the
   manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance.
   … His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others
   to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were
   his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and
   others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown
   tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same
   material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord.
   This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was
   that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He
   sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to
   them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray
   until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech
   be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty
   was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on
   which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members
   forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither
   could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent
   for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference
   between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this,
   that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary
   vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III.
   approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which
   … Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 247 (volume 2)._

   "They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their
   founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,'
   like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,'
   Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching
   Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from
   the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans
   were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers,
   Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from
   the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted
   cord which formed their characteristic girdle."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

{2153}

   "People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were
   convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between
   the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was
   supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St.
   Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."

      _A. Jessopp,
      The Coming of the Friars, 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      Life of St. Francis of Assisi._

      _H. L. Lacordaire,
      Life of St. Dominic._

      _R. Pauli,
      Pictures of Old England,
      chapter 2._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 3, number 8._

      _P. Sabatier,
      Life of St. Francis of Assisi._

MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

MENHIR.

   Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to
   single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found
   in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are
   supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the
   earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      Prehistoric Times,
      chapter 5._

MENOMINEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MENTANA, Battle of (1867).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

  ----------MENTZ: Start--------

MENTZ: Origin.

      See MOGONTIACUM.

MENTZ: A. D. 406.
   Destruction by the Germans.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

MENTZ: 12th Century.
   Origin of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

MENTZ: A. D. 1455-1456.
   Appearance of the first printed book.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MENTZ: A. D. 1631.
   Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MENTZ: A. D. 1792.
   Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.
   Incorporation with the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

MENTZ: A. D. 1793.
   Recovery by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

MENTZ: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Extinction of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

  ----------MENTZ: End--------

MENTZ, Treaty of (1621).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MENZEL PAPERS, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and 1756.

MERCED, The order of La.

   "Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a
   captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D.
   1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he
   should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something
   for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in
   age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood,
   called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of
   collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives
   to the Moors."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
      page 184._

MERCENARIES, Revolt of the.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.

   "The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on
   trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was
   at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the
   fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt
   in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the
   monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles,
   especially cloths. Though of national importance, they
   constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the
   staplers, an administrative organ of the British government.
   The former were all subjects of the English crown; the
   staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the
   sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke
   out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of
   cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in
   cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity
   hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They
   claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in
   1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the
   Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have
   existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III.,
   when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The
   earliest charter granted to it as an organized association
   dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased
   by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its
   original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. …
   Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in
   London, there were many in other English towns. … The
   contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of
   Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly
   with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise
   a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the
   other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The
   line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was
   sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the
   term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern
   signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the
   Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low
   Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the
   Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers
   trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth
   centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her
   immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy
   Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the
   Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company,
   and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most
   powerful of them all."

      _C. Gross,
      The Gild Merchant,
      pages 148-156._

MERCHANT GUILD.

      See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—ENGLAND.

MERCIA, The Kingdom of.

   A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West
   Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed
   it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they
   came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the
   next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power
   were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{2154}

MERCY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN CAPTIVES, The Order of.

   "For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian
   world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the
   12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned
   with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to
   the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in
   slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met
   with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the
   monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the
   number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were
   situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4)._

MERGENTHEIM, Battle of (1645).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

  ----------MERIDA: Start--------

MERIDA, Origin of.

      See EMERITA AUGUSTA.

MERIDA: A. D. 712.
   Siege and capture by the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

  ----------MERIDA: End--------

MERIDIAN, Mississippi,
   Sherman's Raid to.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MERMNADÆ, The.
   The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning
   with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3)._

MEROË, The Kingdom of.

      See ETHIOPIA.

MEROM, Battle of.

   The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of
   Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin,
   king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or
   chieftain among them.

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 12 (volume 1)._

MEROVINGIANS, The.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 448-456; and 511-752.

MERRIMAC AND MONITOR, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

MERRYMOUNT.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MERTÆ, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

MERTON, Statutes of.

   A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in
   England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an
   important advance made in the development of constitutional
   legislation.

      _G. W. Prothero,
      Simon de Montfort._

MERU.

      See MERV.

  ----------MERV: Start--------

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1221.
   Destruction by Jingis Khan.

   In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful
   Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of
   Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220.
   This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one
   of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest
   cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great
   Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and
   populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond,
   also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of
   February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable
   imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such
   fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp,
   and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his
   chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his
   power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them
   all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then
   entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it
   with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told,
   took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful
   massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of
   young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the
   'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned
   for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were
   thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered
   1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were
   counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan
   Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of
   Meru levelled with the ground."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, page 87._

      See, also, KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1884.
   Russian occupation.

      See RUSSIA. A. D. 1869-1881.

  ----------MERV: End--------

MERWAN I., Caliph, A. D. 683-684.

   Merwan II., Caliph, 744-750.

MERWING.

   One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the
   Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly
   known as the Merovingian Family.

MÉRY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MESCHIANZA,
MISCHIANZA, The.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MESOPOTAMIA.

   "Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the
   foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan
   intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and
   the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose
   history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in
   the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or
   'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as
   Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as
   Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken
   its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which
   constitute its most striking feature."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Chaldœa,
      chapter 1._

MESSALINA, The infamies of.

      See ROME: A. D. 47-54.

MESSANA.

      See MESSENE.

MESSAPIANS, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

  ----------MESSENE: Start--------

MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.
   The founding of the city.
   Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
      also, GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

MESSENE: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE; B. C. 357-336.

MESSENE: B. C. 184.
   Revolt from the Achæan League.

   A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League
   having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its
   secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the
   League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the
   Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully
   executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the
   last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen
   was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was
   recovered to the League.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 65._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Philopœmen._

{2155}

MESSENE (MODERN MESSINA), in Sicily.
   The founding of the city.

   "Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme
   the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original
   name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site
   was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is
   Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by
   the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the
   Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards
   Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He
   then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called
   the place Messene, after his native country."

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      translated by Jowett,
      book 6, section 4._

MESSENE: B. C. 396.
   Destruction by the Carthaginians.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MESSENE: B. C. 264.
   The Mamertines.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MESSINA: A. D. 1849.
   Bombardment and capture by King Ferdinand.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

  ----------MESSENIAN WARS: Start--------

MESSENIAN WARS, The First and Second.

   The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their
   neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in
   the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich,
   prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the
   Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky
   ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the
   terraces close by, descending to the river, with their
   well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the
   Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the
   influence of the native population and of a life of
   comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia
   seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most
   intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians
   against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to
   make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had
   sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with
   herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving
   there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a
   forcible extension of Spartan military power on this
   particular side."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted
   twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the
   Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that
   of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for
   thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their
   Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this
   Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so
   great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called
   among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and
   self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They
   gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped
   to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more
   wretched condition than before.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.

MESSENIAN WARS: The Third.

   "The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake,
   which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge
   masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself
   became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are
   said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were
   believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower
   of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the
   buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the
   time."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 17._

   The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from
   the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion
   produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured
   possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town
   and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called
   the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to
   aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies
   and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the
   prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which
   afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the
   Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the
   country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on
   the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an
   important situation.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 1, sections 101-103._

   Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under
   Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was
   humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman
   to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene,
   into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from
   slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once
   more, free and independent.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 39._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78._

   ----------MESSENIAN WARS: End----------

MESSIDOR, The month,

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

MESTIZO.
MULATTO.

   A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an
   Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father
   and a negro mother is called a mulatto.

      _J. J. Von Tschudi,
      Travels in Peru,
      chapter 5._

METAPONTIUM.

      See SIRIS.

METAURUS, Battle of the.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

METAURUS, Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

MÉTAYERS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

METEMNEH, Battle of(1885).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

METHODISTS:
   Origin of the Religious Denomination.

   "The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a
   small society of students at Oxford who met together between
   1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were
   accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on
   Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read
   and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of
   amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners
   in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,
   and the future leader of the religious revival of the
   eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second
   surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in
   Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than
   fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the
   university; but it included some men who afterwards played
   considerable parts in the world.
{2156}
   Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,
   whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose
   gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though
   less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts
   of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,
   and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles
   Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society
   at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides
   being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive
   preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who
   became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with
   general literature."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

METHUEN, Rout of.

   The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had
   been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by
   Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

METHUEN TREATY, The.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

METÖACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

METŒCI.

   "Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of
   personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the
   flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and
   therefore was about half that of the citizens."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 2._

METON, The year of.

   "Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only
   had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which
   three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make
   the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such
   solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar
   months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton
   and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment
   might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up
   235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the
   so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

METRETES, The.

      See EPHAH.

METROPOLITANS.

      See PRIMATES.

METROPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

METTERNICH, The governing system of.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

   ----------METZ: Start--------

METZ: Original names.

   The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of
   Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 34, foot-note._

METZ: A. D. 451.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

METZ: A. D. 511-752.
   The Austrasian capital.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Treacherous occupation by the French.
   Siege by Charles V.
   Cession to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

METZ: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

METZ: A. D. 1679-1680.
   The Chamber of Reannexation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

METZ: A. D. 1870.
   The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.
   The surrender.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

METZ: A. D. 1871.
   Cession to Germany.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

   ----------METZ: End--------

MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

   ----------MEXICO: Start--------

MEXICO.
   Ancient: The Maya and Nahua peoples and their civilization.

   "Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the
   manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal
   America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason
   for and convenience in referring all the native civilization
   to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more
   ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is
   only, however, in a very general sense that this
   classification can be accepted, and then only for practical
   convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are
   several nations that must be ranked among our civilized
   peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show
   no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be
   attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate
   these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the
   reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded
   as among the most ancient in all the Central American region,
   a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left
   such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the
   latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or
   Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The
   civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of
   Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of
   the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding.
   Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas,
   and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three
   nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In
   published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the
   representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of
   the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that
   has been written on the American civilized nations in general.
   The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most
   powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which
   in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled
   central Mexico."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with
   great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or
   Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the
   original cradle of American civilization, but as the most
   ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,
   monumental, and linguistic records. …
{2157}
   Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and
   perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in
   Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,
   or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in
   Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals
   in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote
   period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,
   who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in
   the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended
   north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely
   appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated
   northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed
   founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …
   The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its
   prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,
   perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of
   the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply
   shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The
   Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,
   Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally
   founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side
   by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital
   Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not
   confined to its original home, but was borne … towards
   Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems
   to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young
   and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the
   conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date
   which may be approximately fixed within a century before or
   after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient
   empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the
   ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing
   is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a
   general scattering of the tribes at some period probably
   preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in
   connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,
   Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them
   apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes
   that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,
   those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering
   themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south
   and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in
   Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule
   established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and
   north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and
   the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of
   the Nahuas in Mexico."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 5, chapter 3._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;
      and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

MEXICO: Ancient:
   The Toltec empire and civilization.
   Are they mythical?

   "The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century
   appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out
   and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval
   the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last
   were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in
   possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating
   in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is
   sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is
   furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It
   is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain
   degree, has been by many writers too literally construed;
   since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations
   of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of
   such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as
   practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote
   period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by
   traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any
   proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of
   the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of
   Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization
   was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so
   regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire,
   but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent
   in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a
   higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had
   degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and
   especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary
   religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not
   improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this
   people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them
   so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to
   ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and
   Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the
   civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among
   their descendants down to the present day, nearly every
   ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to
   the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has
   been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional
   events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the
   actual existence of this great empire, the details of its
   history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must
   be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data
   for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain,
   particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to
   indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than
   that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have
   extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some
   evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never
   subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to
   the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its
   traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was
   ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the
   alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.
   The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two
   former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and
   Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the
   valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities
   became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan
   reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame,
   and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name
   the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last
   overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness.
   Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions
   between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the
   imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and
   Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in
   the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown,
   leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations
   of rising powers."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

{2158}

   "Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas,
   or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is
   more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization
   might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The
   name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also
   'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify
   Land of Our Ancestors."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, page 23, foot-note._

   "The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for
   them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is
   certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The
   cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named
   for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we
   have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley
   of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called
   'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas
   among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula
   were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those
   who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs?
   They have hovered about the dawn of American history long
   enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive
   culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the
   north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time
   they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the
   purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants
   and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied
   beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has
   loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came
   to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have
   said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in
   other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I
   consider the original versions of the myth, they do not
   constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or
   servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings
   of supernatural powers."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      American Hero-Myths,
      chapter 3, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. G. Brinton,
      Essays of an Americanist,
      pages 83-100._

   A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully
   accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.

      _D. Charnay,
      Ancient Cities of the New World._

MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
   The Aztec period.
   The so called empire of Montezuma.

   "The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the
   Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to
   the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals
   has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the
   north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central
   Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense
   hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time
   of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two
   significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that
   reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting
   tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of
   the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been
   applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient
   history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion
   among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can
   only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec,
   like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national
   designation proper to any people, while such people were
   living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that
   occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few
   of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title
   Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants
   of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a
   designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom
   these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were
   identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed
   by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the
   term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was
   applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and
   reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in
   their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their
   designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

   "We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to
   have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was
   flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring
   pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the
   'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,'
   with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion,
   came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after
   Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the
   front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum
   underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez
   assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the
   Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this
   twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in
   the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible
   sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the
   advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets
   of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets,
   flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the
   year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called
   Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs,
   hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they
   came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one
   upon which some years before one of their priests had
   immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where
   a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which
   sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest
   ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal
   and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake
   he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told
   him that upon that very spot the people were to build their
   town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place
   of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came
   to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of
   the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and
   cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for
   the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the
   present Republic of Mexico.

{2159}

   The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes;
   which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually
   converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their
   pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,—
   impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were
   concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were
   slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the
   western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose
   principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in
   making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon
   unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to
   Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to
   develop their strength. Their military organization was
   gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first
   tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in
   the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the
   Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli,
   or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of
   his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be
   built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses
   flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months
   after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or
   'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl
   was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking
   Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town.
   The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo
   joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of
   the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and
   captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He
   was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged
   chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete
   change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between
   Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into
   alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and
   destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What
   was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the
   Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the
   neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to
   Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure
   control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper
   Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their
   island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a
   partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan,
   Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic
   plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted
   was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each
   were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan.
   The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the
   confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a
   distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or
   'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or
   'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded
   Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from
   1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico
   was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased
   in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary
   uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the
   canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore,
   Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this
   well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands
   of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between
   Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about
   the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the
   Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua
   language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut
   short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in
   the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary
   area formed but a very small portion of the country which we
   call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the
   Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the
   states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a
   good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes
   absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides
   of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of
   mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his
   companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied
   by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and
   speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured,
   with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among
   the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them
   regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to
   have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers
   along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into
   conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in
   general outline, what we may call the political situation in
   the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who
   was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years
   of age."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1517-1518.
   First found by the Spaniards.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (February-April).
   The coming of Cortes and the Spaniards.

   Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards
   in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized
   people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the
   return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to
   Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518
   the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by
   sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast,
   and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations
   for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in
   the rich country newly found. For the command of this second
   armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and
   most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and
   settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a
   jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some
   cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede
   him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared
   as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior,
   and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future
   conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which
   commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of
   eleven small vessels.
{2160}
   There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed
   with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords
   and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16
   horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer
   set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies,
   not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But
   the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés
   followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River,
   which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that
   explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives
   who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but
   the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived
   to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme
   terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince,
   overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much
   knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as
   vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the
   world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same
   strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the
   empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the
   king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not
   quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The
   presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore
   too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the
   ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl,
   on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all
   the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted
   the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated
   with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation.
   The populace were convinced that it was their deity really
   returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the
   accompaniment of some European wine which they found
   delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy
   depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal
   master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the
   message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold.
   … The bearer of this gift and communication, returning
   swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the
   intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital
   of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of
   all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of
   Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view
   prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the
   unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he
   should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was
   feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions,
   in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They
   accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the
   treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect
   from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the
   desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which
   this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in
   policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for
   years been making enemies all over the country, invading
   surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible
   death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and
   encouraged their presence."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 2-39 (volume 1). _

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (June-October).
   The advance of Cortés to Tlascala.

   "Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of
   the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba.
   He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his
   followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting
   its people a municipality competent to choose a representative
   of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his
   commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with
   supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which
   Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever
   resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion,
   tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was
   irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves
   from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the
   Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious
   circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship
   of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore,
   inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company.
   They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site
   of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each
   chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés
   glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being
   provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers
   of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance,
   his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to
   the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated
   the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and
   added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to
   resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering
   municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last
   stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz)
   sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this
   point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to
   Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of
   gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of
   Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together—
   adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and
   danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed
   which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently
   worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until
   there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him.
   The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to
   accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven
   light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and
   attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or
   three days brought them into the higher plain and its
   enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of
   Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them
   every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which
   reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from
   cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the
   Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma
   dictated.
{2161}
   Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent
   people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country
   against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the
   frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced
   passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,—
   which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify.
   The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which
   historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés
   spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing
   the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the
   compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The
   conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse
   was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was
   the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power
   was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack;
   but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own
   ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his
   double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both
   from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He
   cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in
   cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and
   Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not
   averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he
   could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact,
   and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible
   difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its
   march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and
   wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they
   passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."

      _J. Winsor,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (October).
   The Massacre at Cholula.
   The march to Mexico.

   "The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but
   from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated
   far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the
   Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome.
   The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who
   had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all
   the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated
   pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid
   on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera
   Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl
   had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this
   essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually
   immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found
   at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a
   perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is
   said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had
   inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of
   the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to
   Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his
   resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made
   his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the
   caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break
   of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or
   'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their
   attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the
   men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great
   court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict
   soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared,
   commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans
   that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the
   fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their
   cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been
   left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. …
   They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they
   slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at
   plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that
   resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city
   of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez,
   however, enjoined that the women and children should be
   spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by
   his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of
   Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more
   showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to
   follow their old religion on condition that they should no
   longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the
   threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible
   effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to
   the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he
   had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more
   hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated
   the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian
   auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire,
   the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."

      _M. Chevalier,
      Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
      part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

MEXICO:
   The Capital of Montezuma as described
   by Cortés and Bernal Diaz.

   "This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all
   sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface
   comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,
   including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,
   being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of
   these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger
   of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the
   middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from
   one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies
   between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a
   bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a
   trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements
   on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by
   land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the
   sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other
   lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other
   hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh
   into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan
   [Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from
   the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route
   one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are
   four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed
   by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city
   is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the
   principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and
   all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are
   navigated by canoes.
{2162}
   All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the
   water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these
   openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very
   wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great
   strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten
   horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,
   in which are situated the markets and other places for buying
   and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the
   city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily
   assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and
   selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the
   world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for
   instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and
   silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,
   shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is
   sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it
   exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell
   everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not
   observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building
   in the great square that is used as an audience house, where
   ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all
   controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents
   to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of
   temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,
   which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.
   … Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all
   the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human
   tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,
   surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of
   500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are
   handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in
   which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.
   There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the
   largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is
   higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The
   stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well
   wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …
   This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;
   which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility
   of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses
   in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;
   and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also
   possess fine houses."

      _H. Cortés,
      Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),
      letter 2, chapter 5. _

   "We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and
   neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time,
   left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and
   buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore,
   determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and
   the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived
   in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the
   vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was
   there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that
   reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain
   produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind
   of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where
   every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale.
   … On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards
   which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was
   sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of
   his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There
   were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple,
   from its great height, commanded a view of the whole
   surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise
   see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also
   observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided
   the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see
   the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were
   intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed
   and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which
   were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise
   to the city. From here we also discovered that the only
   communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other
   towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or
   canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered
   temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and
   castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined,
   was a splendid sight."

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs (translated by Lockhart),
      chapter 92 (volume 1)._

MEXICO:
   The same as viewed in the light of modern historical criticism.

   "In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small
   Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the
   continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy
   of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar
   government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the
   largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by
   causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to
   Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish
   adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society
   lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with
   a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly,
   and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the
   pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec
   chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house
   occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his
   fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable
   self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the
   Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American
   aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which
   has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The
   first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by
   introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great
   extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a
   grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was
   reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too
   common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination
   was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and
   empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the
   conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz
   to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian
   society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left
   it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles,
   and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the
   imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the
   picture. …
{2163}
   Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung
   upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the
   Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are
   historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and
   government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong
   probability, from what is known of Indian life and society,
   that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement
   house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large
   number of related families, and occupied by them in common as
   joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his
   palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the
   usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a
   common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian
   fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in
   Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the
   counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may
   be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged
   to the new world after its discovery found the same race of
   Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South
   America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and
   means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and
   customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
   physical characteristics, they were the same people in
   different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was
   observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the
   ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us
   to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were
   useless to a people of European habits, were speedily
   destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a
   civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in
   contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in
   such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and
   then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its
   situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a
   shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to
   the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in
   Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. …
   Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants
   of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe
   brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with
   gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were
   constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing
   this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the
   houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they
   had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is
   not certainly established that they had learned the use of a
   mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it
   is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days,
   destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which
   demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is
   doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America,
   with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico,
   which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to
   apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish
   descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure
   of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a
   pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the
   largest of these joint-tenement houses would accommodate from
   500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians;
   and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by
   constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space,
   as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in
   the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines
      (United States Geographical and Geological Survey of
      Rocky Mountain Region:
      Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),
      chapter 10._

MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.
   Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.
   The discomfiture of Narvaez.
   The revolt of the capital.

   When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in
   the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme
   danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of
   any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico
   that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar
   situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in
   its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and
   narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to
   secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish
   leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by
   taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good
   behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his
   palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in
   their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed,
   and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six
   months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519,
   until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish
   quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and
   tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint,
   but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as
   usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was
   issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both
   Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the
   veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made
   to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though
   Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over
   their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but
   to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few
   Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the
   multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the
   fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the
   Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive
   authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have
   acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they
   exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they
   could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to
   the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to
   act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he
   judged best qualified for such commissions, into different
   parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction,
   whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and
   protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their
   soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the
   districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several
   places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured
   to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the
   Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his
   footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines
   on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal
   prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz.
{2164}
   He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of
   the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment
   of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an
   empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish
   captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious
   zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma
   clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his
   soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the
   city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The
   sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame
   submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At
   this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which
   demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast.
   Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the
   adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an
   expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and
   to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as
   he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican
   capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small
   remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even
   after picking up some detachments outside and joining the
   garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while
   Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought
   800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon.
   The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and
   was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes
   surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a
   wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their
   arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by
   the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest,
   and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head
   of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment
   that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that
   Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected
   intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked
   the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal
   massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the
   empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the
   festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at
   Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their
   quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would
   make haste to their rescue,—which he did.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of America,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, chapters 17-23._

MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).
   The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.
   The battle in the city.
   The death of Montezuma.
   The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.

   The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican
   capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature.
   Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already
   sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed
   his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among
   whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80
   musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and
   entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the
   24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very
   different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from
   that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone
   forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood
   silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges
   between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his
   own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the
   siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely
   enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city
   and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return
   their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly
   reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to
   exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced
   roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the
   people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so
   great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the
   arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full
   of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two
   or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans
   succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with
   difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at
   the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large
   force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez
   threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew
   back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first
   encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight,
   the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable
   success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course
   of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of
   his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large,
   from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day
   was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable
   fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable
   his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans
   upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the
   unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of
   his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the
   people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows
   and received wounds from which he died soon after. The
   fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been
   before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the
   Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great
   temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again
   they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his
   wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of
   fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper
   platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards
   perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a
   momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded
   Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the
   determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They
   would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of
   destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the
   streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people;
   and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told
   him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still
   the Spaniards would perish first. …
{2165}
   It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as
   to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready
   wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his
   position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or
   energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence
   with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail
   against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit
   the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before
   midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in
   laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the
   vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were
   passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and
   blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the
   lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes
   of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon
   into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers
   so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up
   again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle
   in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the
   unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night
   has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche
   triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was
   lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the
   Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners,
   including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his
   nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever
   regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and
   writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained
   a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba.
   … In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one
   recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 10, chapters 7-8 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
   The retreat to Tlascala.
   Reinforcements and recovery.
   Cortes in the field again.
   Preparations to attack Mexico.

   "After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the
   melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at
   Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital,
   probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is
   singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their
   successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this
   momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted,
   and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the
   guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the
   northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their
   auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting
   alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with
   occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse
   that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the
   Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the
   seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred
   by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter
   road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the
   natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until
   they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans
   held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying
   strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many
   of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat
   to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who
   mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma,
   despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the
   hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the
   realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the
   Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the
   Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored.
   He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by
   expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which
   adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained
   reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing
   men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations
   for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new
   arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with
   sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under
   the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for
   brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch
   on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved
   to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time,
   he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well
   as by land." The last day of December found him once more on
   the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a
   Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40
   horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies
   he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had
   died of smallpox—which came to the country with the
   Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a
   vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was
   firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in
   full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its
   western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind
   him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, …
   while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he
   might easily communicate with the valleys of which the
   Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced
   and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran
   the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the
   complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete
   knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the
   Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April
   the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon
   the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the
   city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse
   and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15
   brass falconets.

      _B. Mayer,
      Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican,
      book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (May-July).
   The siege of the Aztec capital begun.

   "The observations which
   Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance
   had determined him to begin the siege by
   distributing his forces into three separate camps,
   which he proposed to establish at the extremities
   of the principal causeways," under three of his
   captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The
   movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the
   10th of May, 1521.
{2166}
   Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba,
   cut the aqueduct which conveyed water
   from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an
   unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the
   fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding
   Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that
   important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the
   city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity
   of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the
   latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two
   outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways,
   which branched to attain the shore at
   those two points. When so much had been accomplished,
   Cortés, in person, set sail with his
   fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake
   of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels
   with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly
   though valorously to dispute it with him. "This
   victory, more complete than even the sanguine
   temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the
   superiority of the Spaniards, and left them,
   henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea.
   It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting
   along the great southern causeway, anchored off
   the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the
   branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike.
   The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford
   room for two towers, or turreted temples, built
   of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same
   material, which presented altogether a position
   of some strength, and, at the present moment,
   was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were
   not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers,
   succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging
   the enemy, and in getting possession of
   the works." Here, in a most advantageous
   position on the great causeway, the Spanish
   commander fortified himself and established his
   headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his
   force to join him and transferring Sandoval to
   Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal
   avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the
   west, were now occupied by the Christians.
   There still remained a third, the great dike of
   Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking
   up the principal street, that passed in a direct
   line through the heart of the city, might be
   regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan.
   By this northern route a means of escape
   was still left open to the besieged, and they
   availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain
   their communications with the country, and to
   supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado,
   who observed this from his station at Tacuba,
   advised his commander of it, and the latter
   instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the
   causeway. That officer, though suffering at the
   time from a severe wound, … hastened to
   obey; and thus, by shutting up its only
   communication with the surrounding country,
   completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés
   was not content to wait patiently the effects of a
   dilatory blockade." He arranged with his
   subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous
   advance along each of the causeways toward the
   city. From his own post he pushed forward with
   great success, assisted by the brigantines which
   sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire
   of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one
   barricade after another, which they had erected
   at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way
   steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole
   length of the dike and entered the city;
   penetrated to the great square; saw once more their
   old quarters; scaled again the sides of the
   pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to
   strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the
   Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they
   had been frenzied by the same deed before, and
   renewed the battle with so much fury that the
   Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic
   and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when
   suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining
   street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping
   rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer
   and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged
   on the great square. Though but a handful in
   number, they plunged boldly into the thick of
   the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling
   Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither
   Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties
   to overcome, and who had no help from
   the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city;
   but their assault had been vigorously made, and
   had been of great help to that of Cortés. The
   success of the demonstration spread consternation
   among the Mexicans and their vassals, and
   brought a number of the latter over to the
   Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince
   of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large
   force, in the next assault which the latter made
   presently upon the city. Again penetrating to
   the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion
   destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the
   spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and
   they were found in every encounter opposing as
   obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived,
   too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the
   blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to
   bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But,
   at length, when most of the great towns of the
   neighborhood had deserted their cause, the
   supplies failed and starvation began to do its work
   in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards
   were amply provisioned, and their new
   allies built barracks and huts for their shelter.
   Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and
   its inhabitants. … He intimated more than
   once, by means of the prisoners whom he released,
   his willingness to grant them fair terms of
   capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected
   his proffers would be accepted. But day after
   day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn
   how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."

      _W. H. Prescott,
     History of the Conquest of Mexico,
     book 6, chapters 4-5._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (July).
   Disastrous repulse of the Spaniards.

   "The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and
   was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than
   Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his
   own judgment, to their importunities" and another general
   attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from
   his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than
   3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers
   reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the
   following manner. There were three streets which led to the
   market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already
   gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,
   with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his
   way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of
   horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the
   street of Tlacuba to the market-place.
{2167}
   Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his
   principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he
   himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,
   and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower
   street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two
   large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the
   entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to
   protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made
   their entrance into the city with even more success and less
   embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and
   barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army
   moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the
   excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a
   great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,
   although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that
   no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in
   the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most
   disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the
   division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was
   engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,
   discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the
   spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards
   and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw
   to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so
   imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of
   Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of
   his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.
   All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the
   water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such
   numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.
   The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him
   off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of
   whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last
   he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the
   broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead
   of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were
   with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his
   retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's
   treasurer and the other commanders to make good their
   retreat."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 11, book 1 (volume 2)._

   "As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large
   drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city.
   Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very
   instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions
   that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance.
   Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we
   subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding
   hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at
   last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had
   arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of
   Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple,
   accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns,
   and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform,
   with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the
   Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers,
   and compelled their victims to dance round the god
   Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full
   length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint
   knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their
   idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and
   how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and
   threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the
   bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive
   them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies,
   drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards
   still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery
   and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts
   of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible
   day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7
   horses."

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 152 (volume 2)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).
   The last days of the Siege.
   The taking of the ruined city.
   The end of the Aztec dominion.

   "Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the
   Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests
   proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the
   Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the
   foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within
   eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of
   the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over
   to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to
   their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The
   sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed
   without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.
   The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to
   their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged
   grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the
   plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not
   only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and
   overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after
   day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their
   richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked
   for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought
   after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no
   other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work
   of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …
   Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from
   them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of
   sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was
   left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most
   incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,
   where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …
   The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the
   last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a
   final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his
   presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a
   magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of
   consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he
   would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he
   added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied
   Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going
   to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,
   a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …
{2168}
   Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself
   into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by
   dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the
   Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him
   with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire
   had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.
   The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was
   no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in
   the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate
   calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very
   many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian
   Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of
   Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at
   the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in
   freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed
   in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the
   Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.
   That conviction must have been established speedily and
   firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless
   it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the
   Atlantic Ocean."

      _M. Chevalier,
      Mexico, Ancient and Modern,
      part 2, chapters 8-9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Cortes,
      Despatches [Letters] MEXICO,
      translated by G. Folsom,
      letter 3, chapter 5._

MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.
   The rebuilding of the capital.
   The completion and settlement of the Conquest.

   "The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by
   very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil
   gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by
   the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his
   heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of
   wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his
   imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy
   to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The
   commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now
   daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still
   occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up
   at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately
   decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new
   capital which was to take the place of the ancient
   Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site
   of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the
   reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which
   should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen
   of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had
   been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian
   population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and
   including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still
   lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. …
   In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new
   city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient
   capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength.
   It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that
   the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which
   had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of
   Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as
   before from this central point, and, passing through the whole
   length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways.
   Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the
   architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much
   danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his
   enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who
   pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied,
   however, to his support, and the result of an investigation,
   undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred
   all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts
   in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor,
   Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to
   appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any
   person to leave the country whose residence there he might
   deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment
   of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission
   investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the
   emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention
   of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to
   establish settlements in every part of the country which
   afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus
   occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was
   still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He
   fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and
   another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being
   the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the
   other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to
   occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the
   head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having
   partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for
   himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced
   Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course
   of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican
   chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was
   accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a
   tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the
   Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust,
   and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years
   after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of
   Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length,
   as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the
   Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces
   of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of
   entire tranquillity."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Mexico,
      book 7, chapters 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8._

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1540.
   Introduction of Printing.

      See PRINTING, &C: A. D. 1535—1709.

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.
   Under the Spanish viceroys.

   "Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy
   sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of
   1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and
   governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He
   … set himself to reform the abuses which had already
   appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which
   the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he
   stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the
   natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,
   he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …
{2169}
   To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the
   firm base upon which the government of Spain was established
   there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged
   the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by
   them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of
   the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his
   government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the
   marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded
   two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached
   great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza
   arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,
   with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long
   absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully
   recognized, that some other strong authority should be
   established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well
   with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at
   odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his
   prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his
   family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don
   Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving
   Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In
   1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press
   imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan
   Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from
   Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of
   Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of
   diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were
   promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second
   viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with
   great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his
   predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of
   Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians
   from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He
   established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the
   highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in
   Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded
   the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the
   exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco
   died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …
   During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all
   the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and
   religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it
   could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In
   the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great
   sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled
   son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as
   a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious
   bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was
   lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the
   Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them
   would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,
   governing according to the best of their lights for several
   years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by
   promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully
   established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The
   first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as
   its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21
   pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of
   frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the
   point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under
   Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of
   judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the
   hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,
   that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was
   not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,
   during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the
   Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that
   century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New
   World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,
   beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with
   Juan O'Donoju in 1822."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapters 20-22._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.
   Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.
   Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The first Revolutionary movement.
   Hidalgo.
   Allende.
   Morelos.

   "The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law
   that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with
   those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary,
   source of discontent among people whose good-will was much
   needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little
   mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and
   the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities.
   There were commercial monopolies militant against public
   interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not
   thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in
   enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use
   force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy
   Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that
   deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason
   of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with
   means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era
   was creating. After some years of these conditions in New
   Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the
   viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to
   revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason
   increased the discontent. The men who were now put
   successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the
   times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to
   strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came,
   brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest,
   Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the
   disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood.
   Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed
   for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their
   allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to
   seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being
   discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the
   standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly
   organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched
   from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached
   Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself
   in a fortified alhondiga, or granary.
{2170}
   The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates
   were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way
   the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict
   (September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader
   had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed.
   Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the
   insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their
   leaders. The military force of the royalists was
   inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove
   not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the
   capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant,
   Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying
   force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his
   way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who
   commanded a corps of observation which confronted the
   insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las
   Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was
   only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his
   force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men,
   but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and
   learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion
   from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo
   that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be
   nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought
   the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already
   weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march
   at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to
   have time enough to spread into other parts of the province,
   and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat.
   The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while
   Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the
   latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal
   forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to
   Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to
   Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio
   Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents
   held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and
   San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea
   in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs
   were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this
   juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his
   entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000
   foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed,
   and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a
   well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only
   counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the
   bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo
   prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the
   day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January,
   1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned
   the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or
   5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined
   Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through
   the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the
   victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo,
   resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were
   marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a
   money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest
   of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing
   more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one
   and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and
   Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had
   thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms
   under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated,
   but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion
   for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in
   the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In
   November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the
   capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and
   routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at
   Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed
   upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own
   congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary
   for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a
   reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile,
   commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory
   congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of
   royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed
   December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the
   insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had
   collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was
   simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz
   de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane
   policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel
   officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain
   quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the
   revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had
   fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which,
   landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously
   inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other
   vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the
   royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed
   himself in the wilds for two years."

      _J. Winsor,
      Spanish North America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, chapter 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. D. Robinson,
      Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution._

MEXICO: A. D. 1819.
   Texas occupied as a province.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
   Independence of Spain.
   The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.
   Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.

   "The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in
   1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what
   was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more
   liberal administration of government in Mexico than had
   prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections
   again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the
   spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke
   forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old
   Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system,
   while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some
   formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the
   church alienated the clergy from the new government, and
   induced them to desire a return to the old system.
{2171}
   The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the
   Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to
   support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed
   to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin
   Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first
   open demonstration against the existing government, was
   offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast,
   at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment
   of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the
   commission, departed from the capital to take command of the
   troops, but with intentions very different from those which
   the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the
   state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which
   the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the
   Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents,
   —Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of
   the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little
   town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th
   of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the
   'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to
   support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an
   independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government
   a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand
   VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne
   in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant
   brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to
   be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste
   were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this
   unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and
   inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco
   Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the
   government; but his authority was not generally recognized,
   and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior
   without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and
   Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their
   country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors
   of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole
   troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon
   rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally
   decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of
   July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide,
   with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut
   himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already
   reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when
   he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new
   Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed
   to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the
   latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as
   the only means of securing the lives and property of the
   Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the
   throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the
   'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his
   master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the
   capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession
   of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September,
   1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in
   accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a
   provisional junta was established, the principal business of
   which was to call a congress for the formation of a
   constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a
   regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the
   head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress
   assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were
   found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the
   Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy,
   with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the
   Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a
   federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists,
   adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article
   in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself
   upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish
   government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void,
   the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle
   was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the
   aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night
   of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was
   declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The
   choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and
   Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to
   which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable
   circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been
   guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to
   be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps
   have continued to maintain a modified authority; but
   forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his
   reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his
   accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between
   him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most
   distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last,
   proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own
   nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke
   out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled
   by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more
   formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young
   general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily
   dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was
   joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the
   power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his
   crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the
   country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for
   his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for
   Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to
   London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in
   consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824,
   passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise
   at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General
   Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress
   of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure
   of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting
   of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the
   government was administered until the meeting of a new
   congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823.
{2172}
   This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new
   constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January,
   1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October
   following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the
   constitution of the United States, the absolute independence
   of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces
   were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was
   vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of
   Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was
   vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United
   Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution
   declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will
   be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will
   protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of
   any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the
   first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the
   city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe
   Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and
   General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and
   1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of
   Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a
   higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent
   period."

      _M. Willson,
      American History,
      book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,
      and volume 8, chapters 1-2._

MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.
   Free-Masonry in politics.
   The rival branches of the order.
   The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

   For some years a furious contest raged between two political
   societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we
   should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York
   Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for
   political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time
   of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain
   in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it
   was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was
   called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.'
   Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards
   still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and
   the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the
   elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial
   throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico
   [1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from
   the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United
   States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic
   party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up
   between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the
   country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in
   the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all
   secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons
   from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United
   States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular
   favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their
   prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last
   resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated
   organization, they pronounced against all secret societies.
   … 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of
   the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as
   a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that
   pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the
   contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up
   his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of
   the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of
   the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero,
   the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of
   government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were
   killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made
   prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés.
   This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to
   the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal
   dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and
   Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the
   election was determined by a resort to arms."

      _R. A. Wilson,
      Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2._

MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.
   The rise of Santa Anna.
   Dissolution of the Federal System.
   The Unitary Republic established.
   Recognition by Spain.
   The Pastry War.
   Retrogradation and decline.

   "After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person
   in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the
   age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his
   chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary
   project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the
   new nations of South America.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

   This project … failed completely; and for several years he
   settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to
   the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In
   1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in
   which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found
   out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing
   them again in the next year, when the feeble force of
   Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce
   Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa
   Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the
   country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago
   all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare
   figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his
   forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,
   cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting
   himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a
   dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own
   account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera
   Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de
   Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the
   non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence
   given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in
   the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,
   having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn
   service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula
   in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in
   disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked
   Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred
   and contempt. …
{2173}
   The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently
   attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in
   1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments
   were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up
   for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,
   elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a
   House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and
   an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with
   the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that
   with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The
   dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened
   the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first
   time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time
   of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of
   progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked
   forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great
   nation of North America would absorb this people of
   half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events
   which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 20, sections 6-7._

MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
   The Abolition of Slavery.

   "The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829
   were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch
   of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle,
   Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive
   measures, the most important of which was the abolition of
   slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow
   limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias
   Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his
   order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had
   liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a
   certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those
   given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general
   abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some
   time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states,
   among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves
   before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on
   the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves
   were in domestic service, and treated more like members of
   families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel,
   taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with
   extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for
   total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and
   proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met
   with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state
   were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily,
   as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the
   law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837,
   another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without
   exception and with compensation to the owners."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4._

MEXICO: A. D. 1845.
   The Annexation of Texas to the United States.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
   The American aggression which precipitated war.

   "Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though
   she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico
   or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.
   The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio
   Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some
   friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the
   boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to
   which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted
   jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton
   denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory]
   as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory
   by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte,
   which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering,
   therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces
   westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation
   was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and
   the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of
   December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops
   were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the
   rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on
   and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January,
   1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy
   positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That
   movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a
   distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican
   territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must
   ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall
      of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapter 149._

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
   The American conquest of California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
   War with the United States.
   The first movements of American invasion.
   Palo Alto.
   Resaca de la Palma.
   Monterey.
   Buena Vista.
   Fremont in California.

   "The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.
   1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States
   commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the
   Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition
   of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for
   the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army
   remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been
   avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat
   ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican
   commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the
   defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement
   took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These
   actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.
   They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent
   elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what
   had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting
   that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who
   has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress
   announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our
   territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our
   own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act
   providing money and men.
{2174}
   Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of
   Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the
   United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as
   1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign
   Relations, had formally notified the American government that
   the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General
   Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his
   nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn
   manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,
   by express order of his government, that, on sanction being
   given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of
   Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission
   ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have
   learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as
   soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus
   provoked by the American government, General Scott received
   orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition
   intended for the invasion of Mexico."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 23 (volume 1)._

   After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general
   Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was
   superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched
   his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the
   invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the
   24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack
   upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a
   force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had
   attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also
   forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of
   this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General
   Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the
   heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of
   Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief
   magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera
   Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting
   that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and
   left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took
   the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the
   advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the
   bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans
   (known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was
   fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to
   San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head
   off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called
   derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time
   was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army,
   and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United
   States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It
   was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about
   5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with
   forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of
   war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the
   capital. While these events were in progress an expedition
   under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through
   New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D.
   1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the
   directions of the United States government the Mexicans of
   California had been incited to revolt."

       _A. H. Noll,
       Short History of Mexico,
       chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,
      volume 3, chapters 4-9._

      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 4-8._

      _E. D. Mansfield,
      History of the Mexican War,
      chapters 2-4 and 8._

      _O. O. Howard,
      General Taylor,
      chapters 8-19._

MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).
   General Scott's campaign.
   From Vera Cruz to the capital.
   Cerro Gordo.
   Contreras.
   Churubusco.
   Molino del Rey.
   Chapultepec.
   The conquest complete.

   "General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief
   command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This
   was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz,
   reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by
   the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet
   with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera
   Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly
   12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of
   7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the
   investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused,
   the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four
   days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican
   batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in
   the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect;
   but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want
   of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April
   the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant.
   The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles
   northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position
   on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery
   commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank
   the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April
   18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The
   divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro
   Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and
   where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by
   storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating
   Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was
   assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves
   surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder
   of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him
   and took the place."

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 14._

   "Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the
   American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at
   Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and
   drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out
   for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000
   troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on
   the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,
   Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one
   general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with
   stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were
   completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached
   almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas
   P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with
   the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on
   the 23d of August.
{2175}
   The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,
   the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and
   20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to
   recover from the demoralization which had followed their
   defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the
   enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements
   and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which
   barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and
   Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of
   September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had
   failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining
   works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th
   Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up
   with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del
   Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the
   Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the
   field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the
   final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made
   of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the
   12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a
   simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops
   storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the
   works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army
   followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,
   fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle
   continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate
   defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city
   council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of
   capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth
   and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up
   for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured
   possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the
   occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The
   principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties
   collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took
   place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a
   guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General
   Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been
   already completed."

      _J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20._

      _General W. Scott,
      Memoirs, by himself,
      chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)_

      _President's Message and Documents,
      December 7, 1847
      (Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session)._

MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
   The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   Territory ceded to the United States.

   "The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies
   of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was
   favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused
   this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General
   Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the
   Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the
   constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride
   … bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies
   assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of
   a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with
   Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to
   assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the
   United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The
   lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented
   immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the
   8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected
   Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under
   the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a
   spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy
   issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the
   boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not
   longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the
   right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous
   offer of money by the United States for the cession of New
   Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d
   of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and
   signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   … The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the
   United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United
   States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000
   for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed
   the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United
   States against Mexico for damages, which the United States
   agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line
   was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf
   of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del
   Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where
   it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward
   along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to
   its western termination; thence northward along the western
   line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the
   river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it
   empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line
   between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one
   marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of
   June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of
   Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's
   administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with
   Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of
   indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were
   equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,
   embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The
   area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United
   States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of
   Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also
   yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520
   square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591
   square miles of territory was one of the direct results of
   this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to
   conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region
   of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order
   adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the
   United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has
   been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of
   New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees
   of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio
   Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of
   sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.
   … The mineral resources of the conquered territory,
   including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,
   Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that
   their value is beyond computation."

      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 30-31._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 681-694._

{2176}

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.
   The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.
   The new Constitution.
   The government of Juarez and
   the Nationalization of Church property.

   "For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American
   army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed
   only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In
   June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the
   opening of the war with the United States) took possession of
   the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory
   of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without
   disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly
   reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for
   the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano
   Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession
   of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and
   economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could
   not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet
   merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some
   military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the
   government. They commenced again the old system of
   'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province
   distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining
   such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they
   were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into
   the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office
   and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years
   later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of
   Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in
   power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than
   General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the
   successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,
   Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced
   at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench
   himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,
   1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him
   perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the
   country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary
   centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful
   leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after
   repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the
   capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly
   left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera
   Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.
   Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing
   for a return to power in Mexico."

      _F. A. Ober,
      Young Folks' History of Mexico,
      chapter 33._

   "Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the
   capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution
   assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega
   acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …
   By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was
   elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of
   August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,
   when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo
   Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,
   known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and
   under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the
   country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and
   order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in
   Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad
   interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named
   Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he
   transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the
   12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon
   the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made
   actual president by a large majority in the popular election
   held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of
   December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable
   rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning
   of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun
   his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again
   broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was
   occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them
   joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of
   16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla
   and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in
   October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by
   Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in
   suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis
   Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas
   Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between
   the Church and the government, so long threatened, was
   precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the
   sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at
   its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,
   but the land was to become thereby freed from all
   ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy
   centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the
   president sent troops to take possession of the place, and
   finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked
   an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the
   Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present
   Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as
   Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its
   provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days
   after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the
   oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing
   that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and
   claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution
   impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution
   aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the
   President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the
   supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution
   upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort
   fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were
   seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a
   half recognized government.
{2177}
   "Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in
   connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the
   presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the
   President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was
   held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became
   president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of
   the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which
   gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies
   and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the
   Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to
   say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching
   power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion
   of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'
   had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is
   thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man
   Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of
   Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not
   a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the
   flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or
   means to establish his government. Being driven out of the
   capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of
   the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.
   There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional
   government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected
   at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the
   knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the
   Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,
   Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing
   his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or
   more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was
   enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival
   governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at
   Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of
   December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave
   the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of
   Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of
   his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the
   27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be
   executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were
   closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious
   orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that
   from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured
   $20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving
   any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate
   another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country
   was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from
   Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,
   was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years
   payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time
   amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,
   and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.
   England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was
   comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been
   founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French
   claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the
   decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three
   creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with
   Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a
   plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

      _A. H. Noll,
      Short History of Mexico,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,
      and volume 9 (6), chapter 1._

      See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

MEXICO: A. D. 1853.
   Sale of Arizona to the United States.
   The Gadsden Treaty.

      See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
   The French intervention.
   Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

   The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint
   undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed
   object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on
   October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican
   authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and
   properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well
   as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their
   Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who
   had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this
   time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in
   exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the
   extent to which the intervention of England would go. England
   would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of
   seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the
   foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would
   have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or
   imposing any European system on the Mexican people.
   Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the
   contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition
   of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in
   the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to
   prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to
   constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of
   the French, however, had already made up his mind that he
   would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had
   long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind
   concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of
   Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the
   very time when he signed the convention with the pledge
   contained in its second article, he had already been making
   arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have
   ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its
   head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been
   too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke
   Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the
   crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The
   Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently
   wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some
   hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint
   expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle
   ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first
   instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced
   immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the
   command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to
   find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much
   suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims
   set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims
   were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule
   as our own Pacifico claims had been.
{2178}
   A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former
   Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that
   Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.
   The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez
   came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for
   $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He
   offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,
   but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the
   sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a
   subject of France, and the French Government took up his
   claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had
   resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the
   French Government became evident to the English and Spanish
   Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the
   Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild
   road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of
   Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and
   desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th
   of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the
   capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as
   Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.
   Against all this the United States Government protested from
   time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing
   just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied
   that the United States were going to pieces, and that the
   Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received
   the protests of the American Government with unveiled
   indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The
   Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee
   surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United
   States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American
   Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be
   inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw
   his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American
   troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,
   was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was
   nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …
   The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last
   of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian
   endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself
   against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all
   the courage which might have been expected from his race, and
   from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for
   himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a
   French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted
   his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this
   monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,
   taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the
   invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The
   Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done
   to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,
   was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned
   and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of
   this Mexican failure."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14._

      _H. M. Flint,
      Mexico under Maximilian._

      _F. Salm-Balm,
      My Diary in Mexico (1867)._

      _S. Schroeder,
      The Fall of Maximilian's Empire._

      _Count E. de Keratry,
      The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian._

      _J. M. Taylor,
      Maximilian and Carlotta._

      _U. R. Burke,
      Life of Benito Juarez._

MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.
   The restored Republic.

   "On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into
   the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched
   gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now
   emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of
   their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine
   acclamations by the populace, while high society remained
   within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took
   pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the
   Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general
   election established Juarez as President, and order and
   progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of
   the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt
   to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without
   difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many
   opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of
   election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply
   divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly
   contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of
   Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of
   the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military
   glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who
   had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the
   Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,
   minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,
   a man of great strength of character and capacity for
   government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the
   country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were
   triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was
   re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the
   ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties
   combined, and civil war began again. Government defended
   itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the
   popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during
   a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still
   undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for
   the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don
   Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme
   Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the
   late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace
   reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards
   the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …
   Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those
   fatal propositions for change which have always spread like
   wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the
   Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had
   apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio
   Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.
   … During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,
   in the midst of which the election took place for the choice
   of President for another term of four years.
{2179}
   The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so
   unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,
   on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a
   few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,
   Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended
   the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the
   expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General
   Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was
   proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of
   fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,
   1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until
   November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate
   his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although
   this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of
   his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on
   the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in
   the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over
   his office to his legally elected successor. … The
   administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years
   without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term
   General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,
   1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic
   without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his
   government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done
   much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

      _S. Hale,
      The Story of Mexico,
      chapter 41-42._

   "At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one
   railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running
   in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers
   (about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines
   in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000
   kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which
   aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …
   message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is
   gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the
   financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …
   Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect
   $9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The
   revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past
   twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are
   estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of
   President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one
   of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations
   are being made in favor of another term."

      _W. Butler,
      Mexico in Transition,
      pages 284-287._

   President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began
   December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19._

   ----------MEXICO: End----------

MIAMIS, The.
   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I.,
   King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

   Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

   Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL
   The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

   Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

   Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

   Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

   Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

   Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

   Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

   Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

   Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;
   Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

   Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

   ----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

MICHIGAN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.
   Traversed by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.
   The founding of the French post at Detroit.

      See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.
   The surrender to the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts
   and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.
   Detached from Indiana Territory and
   distinctly named and organized.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.
   Tecumseh and his League.
   Battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.
   The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory
   to the British arms by General Hull.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.
   Recovery by the Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813,
      HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.
   The founding of the University of Michigan.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.
   Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,
   and then beyond.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
   Admission into the Union as a State.
   Settlement of Boundaries.

   A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which
   the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the
   Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of
   Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the
   two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,
   but primarily upon the great
   Ordinance of 1787.
{2180}
   It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of
   territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,
   embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of
   Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan
   began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an
   enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,
   1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,
   demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth
   article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries
   sought being those established by the article in question.
   That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed
   territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,
   President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special
   message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the
   quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering
   Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is
   to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the
   supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,
   protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an
   outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with
   the north peninsula, and was separated from it by
   insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,
   while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed
   out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in
   making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions
   precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In
   September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole
   purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on
   the ground that congress had no right to annex such a
   condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second
   convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December
   following, and congress at once accepted this decision as
   final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,
   January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she
   possesses to-day."

      _R. G. Thwaites,
      The Boundaries of Wisconsin
      (Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,
      volume 11, pages 456-460)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 17._

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.
   Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   ----------MICHIGAN: End----------

   ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

MICHIGAN, Lake:
   The Discovery.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake:
   Navigated by La Salle.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

   ----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

MICHIGANIA,
    The proposed State of.

       See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

    See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

   One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this
   name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash
   and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

      _I. Samuel XIV._

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 21 (volume 2)._

MICKLEGARTH.

   "Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of
   Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,
   to Byzantium, the New Rome.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

   The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]
   which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,
   when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian
   world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town
   of towns,' of the northern legends."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

MICMACS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

   "The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed
   between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the
   great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion
   of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era
   [see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the
   Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages, author's preface._

   "It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;
   … though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in
   a general point of view, to constitute that period."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages, preface to first edition._

   "We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476
   A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the
   beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman
   Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the
   whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select
   any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best
   for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval
   history we find no such general agreement as to the specific
   date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one
   author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
   through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for
   another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,
   the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is
   in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the
   extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end
   at different dates in the different lines of
   advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than
   upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,
   as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an
   especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself
   primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient
   or modern history, the additions which were made during the
   middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and
   unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the
   most important of them fall within the last part of the
   period, and they are really indications that the age is
   drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.
   Progress, however much there may have been, is not its
   distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of
   this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very
   barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark
   ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are
   a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or
   to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,
   unless there can be found running through all its confusion
   some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and
   organization. … Most certainly there must be some such
   general meaning of the age.
{2181}
   The orderly and regular progress of history makes it
   impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning
   can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is
   the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem
   so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general
   meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work
   which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who
   had taken possession of the ancient world and become
   everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment
   and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of
   civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and
   go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of
   the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be
   added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the
   enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and
   vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this
   union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous
   Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of
   time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization During the Middle Ages,
      introduction._

   "We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of
   the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must
   deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity
   when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building
   age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.
   Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the
   happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of
   1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,
   reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all
   men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful
   buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In
   presence of this manifestation of free and productive
   intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and
   utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the
   expressive and constructive force of the spirit of
   Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we
   examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the
   conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a
   sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient
   Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of
   our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its
   flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom
   the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the
   Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the
   first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen
   masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor
   in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a
   third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their
   territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of
   intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a
   universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.
   Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain
   after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the
   term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects
   the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the
   Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is
   perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these
   questions, that the instinct of our physical science and
   naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and
   democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is
   essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,
   regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the
   Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine
   though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in
   Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

      _B. Bosanquet,
      The Civilization of Christendom,
      chapter 3._

   "'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really
   forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I
   have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he
   came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages
   of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody
   allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what
   do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally
   used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in
   a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I
   could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I
   was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the
   sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to
   remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …
   Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark
   to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind
   the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from
   shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that
   we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see
   what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree
   of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as
   to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in
   them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal
   exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what
   are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew
   nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we
   deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;
   but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they
   were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

      _S. R. Maitland,
      The Dark Ages,
      introduction._

   "In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that
   which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay
   dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was
   woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
   which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.
   Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,
   people, party, family, or corporation—only through some
   general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
   objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all
   the things of this world became possible. The subjective side
   at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;
   man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as
   such."

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Renaissance in Italy,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      EUROPE (page 1010-1048):
      EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;
      LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;
      MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG:
   Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

   "The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the
   tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was
   extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the
   Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 15 (volume 1)._


MIGDOL.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

   "Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows
   the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan
   itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese
   have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such
   alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or
   Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'
   His designation in the official translations of modern public
   documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the
   word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the
   current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a
   'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …
   The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's
   Court as well as the monarch himself."

      _B. H. Chamberlain,
      Things Japanese,
      page 229._

MIKASUKIS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

   See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

   ----------MILAN: Start--------

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.
   The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).
   Taken by the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268.
   Aureolus besieged.

   During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor
   Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,
   Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to
   place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle
   fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that
   city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege
   a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and
   he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier
   Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted
   it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was
   forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 11._

MILAN: A. D. 286.
   The Roman imperial court.

   "Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who
   fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the
   provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]
   was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,
   at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than
   that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the
   motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the
   splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as
   numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished
   and liberal."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

MILAN: A. D. 313.
   Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

      See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397.
   The Ambrosian Church.

   The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly
   originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their
   Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner
   constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and
   splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and
   his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and
   pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by
   St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief
   aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from
   all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to
   397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as
   a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such
   was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior
   dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the
   Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose
   a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated
   by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those
   which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To
   the singing in divine service, which was then artless and
   rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies
   still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation
   of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the
   Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the
   grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of
   worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards
   becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through
   the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was
   brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.
   … St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and
   hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most
   sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar
   and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that
   his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion
   prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,
   ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

      _G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      pages 23-24._

MILAN: A. D. 404.
   Removal of the Imperial Court.

      See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452.
   Capture by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539.
   Destroyed by the Goths.

   When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of
   Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.
   538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,
   hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It
   was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to
   the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths
   appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians
   who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius
   despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals
   in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly
   resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of
   starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance
   was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if
   the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to
   300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the
   Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.
   The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time
   that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of
   Lombardy."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 11._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

{2183}

   "The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the
   destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and
   opulence."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 41._

MILAN: 11th Century.
   Acquisition of Republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MILAN: A. D. 1162.
   Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

MILAN: A. D. 1167.
   The rebuilding of the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
   The rise and the reign of the Visconti.
   Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.
   The downfall of their House.

   "The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of
   the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General
   of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop
   of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of
   his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his
   relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his
   nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and
   by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed
   the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent
   Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded
   in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.
   D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son
   Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,
   and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a
   general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more
   cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as
   became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce
   enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less
   fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The
   Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion
   of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],
   and only released him at the intercession of his friend
   Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing
   tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office
   delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]
   bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,
   from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was
   thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to
   fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which
   he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he
   consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in
   1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in
   1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was
   poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a
   general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and
   made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left
   sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was
   succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande
   and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was
   one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.
   Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to
   the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong
   enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to
   the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having
   established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the
   north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,
   Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop
   Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.
   They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della
   Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made
   sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide
   extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on
   force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;
   and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal
   houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons
   were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left
   three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of
   the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.
   Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of
   Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be
   ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way
   by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at
   Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter
   married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward
   III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.
   "Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion
   of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was
   able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of
   treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of
   his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with
   this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter
   in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the
   Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of
   Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,
   the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,
   the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,
   the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled
   at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while
   the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian
   Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala
   dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial
   authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline
   general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of
   the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished
   the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before
   approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house
   began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;
   of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in
   1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of
   these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards
   fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of
   Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara
   family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the
   Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.
{2184}
   He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation
   of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his
   territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year
   possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was
   then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had
   committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the
   Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of
   Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian
   Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues
   of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of
   Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their
   ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole
   of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His
   next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa
   had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish
   policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would
   profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the
   Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their
   head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and
   then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the
   Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague
   came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of
   Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he
   was now able to take possession of those cities. There
   remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence
   and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to
   withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.
   1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed
   to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole
   of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of
   independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with
   fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged
   55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The
   generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such
   portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily
   acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to
   pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see
   ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained
   (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the
   death of the last of them, in 1447.

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 2._

   "At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]
   informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor
   Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged
   duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually
   gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all
   the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had
   formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia
   indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate
   being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy
   granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both
   sides of the lake of Garda."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 4._

      _G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),
      History of Italy,
      chapters 4-5 (volume 1)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.
   Wars with Florence and with the Pope.
   Dealings with the Free Companies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

MILAN: A. D. 1422.
   The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
   Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.
   The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.
   War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,
   Savoy, and other states.

   John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a
   daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of
   the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke
   of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage
   contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,
   upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the
   duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine
   and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year
   1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of
   Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.
   Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on
   the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.
   Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will
   made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,
   upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,
   the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be
   re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with
   the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the
   Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,
   and established a republican form of government. But during
   the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which
   they contended was seized by one from whom none of them
   apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of
   Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated
   from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and
   powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his
   father in the command of the adventurers who followed his
   standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of
   Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a
   title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he
   supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on
   the ducal throne."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Charles the Fifth:
      View of the Progress of Society,
      section 3._

   "Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
   treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
   the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
   was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
   its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
   formation of a political system which, however great its
   weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
   circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
   Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
   recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
   close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
   between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
   either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
   Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
   In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
   on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
   in Sforza's favour. …
{2185}
   Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
   maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
   which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
   the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
   And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
   which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
   with Florentine money till he had established his position and
   re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
   Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
   one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
   defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
   Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
   four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
   Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
   successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
   prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
   all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
   Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
   more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
   possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
   Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
   1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
   Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
   Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
   king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
   ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
   States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
   alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

      _A. von Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza._

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti._

      _The French Claim to Milan._

MILAN: A. D. 1464.
   Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
   His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
   The French invasion of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
   His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

MILAN: A. D. 1501.
   Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,
   by the Emperor Maximilian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

MILAN: A. D. 1512.
   Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

   Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their
   struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope
   Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold
   their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,
   and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem
   possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile
   state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time
   grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the
   proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano
   Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project
   the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the
   cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining
   in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.
   The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely
   galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest
   difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved
   none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of
   Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the
   year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,
   with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part
   of the people."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 37 (volume 2)._

MILAN: A. D. 1515.
   French reconquest by Francis I.
   Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

MILAN: A. D. 1517.
   Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.
   The French again expelled.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.
   Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
   Renewed attack of the French king.
   Its disastrous end.
   Renunciation of the French claim.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

MILAN: A. D. 1544.
   Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
   The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.
   Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

MILAN: A. D. 1713.
   Cession of the duchy to Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MILAN: A. D. 1745.
   Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

MILAN: A. D. 1746.
   Recovered by the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

MILAN: A. D. 1796.
   Occupation by the French.
   Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1799.
   Evacuation by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1800.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1805.
   Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Failure of the struggle.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MILAN: A. D. 1859.
   Liberation from the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------MILAN: End----------

MILAN DECREE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
   also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

MILANESE,
MILANESS, The.

   The district or duchy of Milan.

MILESIANS, Irish.

   In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came
   from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races
   which colonized Ireland.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

   ----------MILETUS: Start----------

{2186}

MILETUS.

   Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern
   extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest
   anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and
   Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic
   families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city
   anew.

      See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

   True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her
   rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other
   rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.
   Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of
   wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated
   tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large
   multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in
   an increasing measure to demand importation from without of
   all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

      See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

   In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary
   to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade
   even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the
   so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian
   enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the
   Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the
   Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at
   Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the
   Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they
   were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when
   that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt
   failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

   Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by
   Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was
   destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not
   been identified with certainty;

MILETUS: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

   ----------MILETUS: End----------

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

   See HOSPITALLERS;
   TEMPLARS;
   TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
   and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

MILL SPRING, Battle of.

    See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

   "It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was
   a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in
   the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been
   subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,
   and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be
   still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the
   tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,
   however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle
   age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of
   Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of
   Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 101-102._

MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

MILTIADES:
   Victory at Marathon.
   Condemnation and death.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MINA.

      See TALENT;
      also, SHEKEL.

MINCIO, Battle of the.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

MINDEN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MING DYNASTY, The.

      See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;
      and 1294-1882.

MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MINGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

MINIMS.

   "Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most
   remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or
   Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by
   Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of
   Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France
   gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that
   their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,
   Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new
   religious society, the members of which, not content with the
   name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of
   utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 8, pages 369 and 224._

MINISTRY.
MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

MINNE.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

   ----------MINNESOTA: Start--------

MINNESOTA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.
   Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,
   acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.
   Territorial and State organizations.

   Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
   to the Union as a State in 1858.

   ----------MINNESOTA: End--------

MINNETAREES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

   ----------MINORCA: Start----------

MINORCA: 13th Century.
   Conquest by King James of Aragon.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

{2187}

MINORCA: A. D. 1708.
   Acquisition by England.

   In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,
   and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English
   expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who
   afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming
   Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the
   best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England
   was rated above that of Gibraltar.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 10._

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

   At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and
   remained under the British flag during the greater part of the
   18th century.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
   Taken by the French.

   At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was
   great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and
   "the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the
   King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread
   was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in
   the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being
   collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing
   Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and
   Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.
   Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with
   16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled
   General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw
   into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On
   the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of
   Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was
   still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La
   Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who
   apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his
   second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called
   a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his
   position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of
   Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,
   roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,
   trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,
   hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court
   martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict
   instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a
   verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on
   the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power
   Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular
   favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the
   King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to
   be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that
   fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to
   look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the
   House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was
   shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth
   (March 14, 1757)."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, pages 1021-1022._

MINORCA: A. D. 1763.
   Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MINORCA: A. D. 1782.
   Captured by the Spaniards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

MINORCA: A. D. 1802.
   Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

   ----------MINORCA: End----------

MINORITES, The.

   The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
   Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

      See MENDICANT ORDERS.

MINQUAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

MINSIS,
MUNSEES,
MINISINKS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MINUTE-MEN.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

MINYI, The.

   "The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with
   a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian
   people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes
   includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians
   and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in
   the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats
   of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
   movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other
   words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread
   both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the
   fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of
   the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low
   southern coast they founded a new city at the western
   extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge
   juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its
   farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At
   the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.
   Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of
   wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky
   staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a
   castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called
   Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat
   which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a
   proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only
   a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths
   of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet
   high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The
   ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of
   which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the
   superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in
   these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of
   Orchomenus sung by Homer."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      See, also, BŒOTIA;
      and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

MIR, The Russian.

   "The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
   of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
   In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
   to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
   divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
   special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
   administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
   of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
   vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
   'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
   several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
   it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
   its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
   even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
   right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
{2188}
   Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
   fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
   improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
   for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
   or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
   things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
   must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
   fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
   hence, because in some families the number of members will
   have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
   therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
   long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
   sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
   persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
   redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
   It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
   that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
   circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
   fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
   with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
   work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
   the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
   with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
   administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
   starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
   do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
   communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
   measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
   new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
   adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
   peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
   women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
   is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
   to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
   assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

      _L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _W. T. Stead,
      The Truth about Russia,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 8._

MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.

MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

      See THUNDERING LEGION.

MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;
      and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

MIRANHA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.

MISCHIANZA, The.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MISCHNA, The.

   Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
   A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
   embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
   Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
   traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
   of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
   Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
   Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
   superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
   grounded,
      1. On the Written Law of Moses.
      2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
      and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
      3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
      4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
      schools were divided, and which still remained open.
      5. Ancient usages and customs.

   The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious
   exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious
   and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the
   authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.
   The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,
   ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or
   subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by
   the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,
   grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …
   whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or
   wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler
   words."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19._

      See, also, TALMUD.

MISE OF AMIENS, The.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

MISE OF LEWES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MISENUM, Treaty of.

   The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually
   admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the
   triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MISR.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MISSI DOMINICI.

   "Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl
   [Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,
   called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the
   palace to oversee and inspect the various local
   administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers
   each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the
   counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,
   or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not
   exempted from this scrutiny."

      P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 17.

      See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

MISSIONARY RIDGE:
   Its position, and the battle fought on it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   ----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.
   Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
   Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

{2189}

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
   Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Partly in dispute with Spain.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
      The Territory constituted and organized.

   "The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish
   authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,
   with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was
   erected into a territory of the United States by act of
   Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the
   amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and
   authorizing the establishment of a government in the
   Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new
   organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced
   that portion of country between the Spanish line of
   demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the
   Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its
   western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The
   organization of a territorial government by the United States
   was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,
   which was left open for future negotiation between the State
   of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of
   Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands
   south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive
   $1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in
   said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive
   territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi
   Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the
   Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within
   its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi
   Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,
   and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the
   Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and
   comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of
   Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District
   between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this
   extensive territory were in the possession of the four great
   southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the
   Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about
   75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions
   of this territory to which the Indian title had been
   extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,
   on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in
   length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the
      Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2)._

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.
   Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory
   and possession taken.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
   Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.

   The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original
   Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last
   almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth
   Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal
   struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of
   1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State
   constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the
   slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,
   which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December
   10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and
   satisfactory."

         _J. Schouler,
         History of the United States,
         volume 3, page 100._

   At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which
   forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected
   into the Territory of Alabama.

      See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
   The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).
   First Union attempts against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).
   The battles of Iuka and Corinth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).
   Grierson's raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).
   Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).
   Capture and destruction of Jackson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).
   Sherman's raid to Meridian.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   Wilson's raid.
   The end of the Rebellion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional government set up under
   President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.
   State reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------

   ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.
   Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
   Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
   Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.
   Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
   Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
   See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.
   Called the River St. Louis by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.
   The question of the Right of Navigation
   disputed between Spain and the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.
   Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
      1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

   Madrid and Island No. 10;
   1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;
   1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;
   1862 (JUNE), Memphis;
   1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;
   1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY),

   Siege and capture of Vicksburg;
   1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------

{2190}

MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
   Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
   Purchase of the western side by the United States.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   ----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------

MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------MISSOURI: Start--------

MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.
   First development of lead mines by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
   French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
   The founding of St. Louis.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
   Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
   The changing of its name to Missouri.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.
   Arkansas detached.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
   Admission to the Union.
   The Compromise concerning Slavery.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The Kansas Struggle.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
   The baffling of the Secessionists.
   Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
   The capture of Camp Jackson.
   Battle of Boonville.
   A loyal State Government organized.

   The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the
   Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of
   the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to
   the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how
   they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other
   munitions of war which it was known to contain. …
   Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible
   parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession
   of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state
   militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is
   said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the
   necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed
   no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority
   to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become
   necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting
   it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. …
   Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had
   his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair
   was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already
   busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with
   guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months
   later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it
   is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this
   to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That
   went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came
   for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point
   with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which
   his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time,
   whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can
   hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the
   service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his
   commander) were watching each other, the federal government
   awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in
   St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th
   of February, the day of the election of delegates to the
   convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession,
   there were between four and five hundred men behind the
   arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the
   department and presumably familiar with its condition, under
   date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington
   that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. …
   Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had
   arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was
   destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to
   write his name indelibly in the history of the State. …
   Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair
   and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the
   middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon,
   who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the
   department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order
   which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this
   force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the
   state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to
   furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under
   President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington
   that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent
   to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.'
   The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been
   sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the
   command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon
   was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another
   brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of
   volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a
   battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as
   General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected
   of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his
   position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. …
   Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was
   unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not
   accept the decision of the February election as final. …
   Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the
   General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in
   conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert
   measures for arming the militia of the State. …
{2191}
   To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a
   prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial
   showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of
   Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops
   hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal
   government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate
   authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him
   with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the
   arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at
   Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such
   measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in
   a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was
   authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several
   military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for
   the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline.
   … Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's
   brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized
   under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering
   less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in
   the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp
   Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being
   surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills;
   it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every
   direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of
   ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word,
   it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive
   in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was
   organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the
   entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a
   demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion
   early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp
   Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no
   defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he
   was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been
   disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were
   paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners
   were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd
   of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the
   home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It
   is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this
   lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of
   the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was
   given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley
   firing, which is said to have been executed with precision
   considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was
   checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or
   mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two
   women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons
   assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it
   must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the
   secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove
   not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into
   the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the
   Confederate army."

      _L. Carr,
      Missouri,
      chapter 14._

   When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson
   City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson
   at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be
   destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several
   bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which
   placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of
   the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to
   organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime
   Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at
   St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total
   change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement
   with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief
   of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the
   cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active
   insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington
   were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon
   restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of
   June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State,
   Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking
   flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered.
   Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at
   Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a
   recess in March was now called together by a committee that
   had been empowered to do so before the convention separated,
   and a provisional State government was organized (July 31)
   with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

      _J. G. Nicolay,
      The Outbreak of the Rebellion,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Snead,
      The Fight for Missouri._

      _J. Peckham,
      General Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861._

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September).
   Sigel's retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

A. D. 1861 (August-October).
   Fremont in command.
   His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels.
   His quarrel with Frank P. Blair.
   The change in command.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
   Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
   Organization of the loyal Militia of the state.
   Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December).
   Social effects of the Civil War.
   The Battle of Prairie Grove.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (August).
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid to Lawrence, Kansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (October).
   Cabell's invasion.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Price's raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

   ----------MISSOURI: End--------

MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The.
   Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1818-1821; 1854; and 1857.

{2192}

MISSOURI RIVER:
   Called the River St. Philip by the French (1712).

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSOURIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MITCHELL, General Ormsby M.:
   Expedition into Alabama.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA);
      and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

MITHRIDATIC WARS, The.

   A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between
   Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called
   Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors,
   it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a
   province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the
   year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes,
   rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district
   of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained
   under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took
   the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was
   reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained
   independence during the wars between Alexander's successors
   (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224),
   and extended its limits towards the west and south. The
   kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history
   under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the
   title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He
   ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received,
   notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the
   age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of
   conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the
   struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a
   period of about seven years he extended his dominions around
   the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia,
   Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea
   and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances
   with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped
   to threaten Italy.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 4, period 3, part 4._

   "He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred
   to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a
   district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his
   father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of
   the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes
   and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in
   whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus,
   Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces.
   He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he
   now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the
   intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber.
   A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed
   between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The
   imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East,
   precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending
   for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly
   appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce
   white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the
   length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful
   news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen
   victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken
   publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the
   sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers;
   the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of
   Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people
   was butchering the children before the eyes of father and
   mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and
   giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his
   torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had
   retained her independence, remained faithful to her great
   ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos,
   and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that
   imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This
   politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece.
   Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power
   in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of
   the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on
   towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to
   Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his
   consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or
   by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed
   over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave.
   History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool,
   self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during
   these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce
   faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to
   fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible
   silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C.
   88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the
   camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had
   escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with
   unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his
   constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with
   lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He
   carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with
   their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he
   counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that
   he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial
   buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth.
   Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. …
   With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army
   from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and
   ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to
   overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards
   through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a
   slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to
   save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch
   a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground
   of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of
   the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus,
   who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried
   by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch,
   Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only
   fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had
   restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better,
   the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek
   vanished in the oriental despot.
{2193}
   Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be
   assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to
   the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred
   Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce
   his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he
   did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with
   Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army
   appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near
   Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with
   the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85],
   and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with
   the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in
   the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was
   sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome
   better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone
   in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the
   battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate
   had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and
   appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The
   disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a
   climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus
   without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while
   Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to
   negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of
   the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy,
   Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own
   legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by
   the legions themselves might seem significant if anything
   could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla
   now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on
   these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his
   conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios,
   pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria
   … remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter:
   the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and
   the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the
   legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers
   first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of
   the great general; and the democratic general had not yet
   appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger
   than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through
   with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in
   Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn.
   Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry.
   He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered
   province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to
   prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the
   consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate
   entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe
   conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the
   nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of
   their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 26._

      _Plutarch,
      Sulla._

   After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C.
   78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven
   from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus,
   where he ended his life in despair two years later. The
   kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The
   southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent
   kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the
   state of a Roman province.

MITLA, The Ruins of.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   ----------MITYLENE: Start--------

MITYLENE.

   The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to
   which it ultimately gave its name.

      See LESBOS.

MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427.
   Revolt from Athenian rule.
   Siege and surrender.
   The tender mercies of Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

MITYLENE: B. C. 406.
   Blockade of the Athenian fleet.
   Battle of Arginusæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

   ----------MITYLENE: End--------

MIXES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIXTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIZRAIM.

   See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MOABITES, The.
   The Moabite Stone.

   As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of
   Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites
   were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the
   rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea;
   but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of
   this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a
   very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred
   shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan.
   Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement
   of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations
   both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their
   nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of
   the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the
   death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war
   which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2
   Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a
   Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered
   within quite recent times, under the following circumstance.
   Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was
   formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black
   basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He
   copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The
   Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of
   the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at
   Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own
   country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to
   take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the
   inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect
   squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone
   to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken
   from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and
   water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and
   were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's
   squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was
   deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha,
   king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the
      Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 4._

{2194}

   The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not
   much of their subsequent history is known.

      _G. Grove,
      Dictionary of the Bible._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. King,
      Moab's Patriarchal Stone._

      See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,
      and JEWS: UNDER THE JUDGES.

MOAWIYAH,
   Caliph (founder of the Omeyyad dynasty), A. D. 661-679.

   Moawiyah II., Caliph, A. D. 683.

   ----------MOBILE: Start--------

MOBILE: A. D. 1702-1711.
   The founding of the city by the French.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MOBILE: A. D. 1763.
   Surrendered to the English.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (JULY).

MOBILE: A. D. 1781.
   Retaken by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

MOBILE: A. D. 1813.
   Possession taken from the Spaniards by the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MOBILE: A. D. 1864.
   The Battle in the Bay.
   Farragut's naval victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: ALABAMA).

MOBILE: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   Siege and capture by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

   ----------MOBILE: End--------

MOBILIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOCOVIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

   ----------MODENA: Start--------

MODENA, Founding of.

   See MUTINA.

MODENA: A. D. 1288-1453.
   Acquired by the Marquess of Este.
   Created a Duchy.

      See ESTE, THE HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

MODENA: A. D. 1796.
   Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte.
   Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MODENA: A. D. 1801.
   Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

MODENA: A. D. 1803.
   The duchy acquired by the House of Austria.

      See ESTE, HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1815.
   Given to an Austrian Prince.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1831.
   Revolt and expulsion of the Duke.
   His restoration by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

MODENA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Abortive revolution.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861.
   End of the dukedom.
   Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------MODENA: End--------

MODIUS, The.

      See AMPHORA.

MODOCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

MOERIS, Lake.

   "On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land,
   the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by
   a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the
   centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level
   as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a
   considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied
   by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket
   Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth
   dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an
   area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile
   was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored
   up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the
   left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an
   inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the
   artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself
   overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the
   Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable
   work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri,
   that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made
   Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst
   the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the
   Arabs, the name of the entire province,
   Fayum."

      _M. Mariette,
      quoted in Lenormant's
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 2._

MŒSIA,
MÆSIA.

   "After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss
   [Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks,
   the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the
   latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of
   Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the
   right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages,
   was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and
   Bulgaria."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   Mœsia was occupied by the Goths in the 4th century.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381; and 376.

MOESKIRCH, Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MŒSO-GOTHIC.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

MOGONTIACUM.

   "The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were
   always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz.
   … Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down
   to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans
   sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present
   day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the
   Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region
   of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the
   tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense'
   (Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their
   possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might
   establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti,
   and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even
   under Roman rule."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 4 (The Provinces, volume 1)._

MOGUL EMPIRE.
THE GREAT MOGUL.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MOHACS, Battle of (1526).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

MOHACS, Second Battle of (1687).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

MOHAMMED, The Prophet of Islam.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

   Mohammed, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1104-1116.

   Mohammed I., Turkish Sultan, 1413-1421.

   Mohammed II., Turkish Sultan, 1451-1481.

   Mohammed III., Turkish Sultan, 1595-1603.

   Mohammed IV., Turkish Sultan, 1649-1687.

   Mohammed Mirza, Shah of Persia, 1577-1582.

   Mohammed Shah, sovereign of Persia, 1834-1848.

MOHARRAM FESTIVAL, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

MOHAVES,
MOJAVES, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

{2195}

MOHAWKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

MOHAWKS, The, of Boston and New York.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

MOHAWKS,
MOHOCKS, of London.

      See MOHOCKS. [Third item below.]

MOHEGANS,
MAHICANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MOHILEF, Battle of.

       See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOHOCKS, The.

   "This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne:
   [1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite
   amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs
   and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the
   public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and
   even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang
   designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and
   'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and
   'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the
   Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life
   twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash
   windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites';
   and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the
   'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their
   name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by
   plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their
   avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their
   rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink
   themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made
   a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets.
   Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and
   carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they
   executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was
   squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes
   with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught
   their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their
   legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters'
   worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims
   with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion
   of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and
   rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the
   villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a
   Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this,
   however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift
   exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every
   night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of
   the reign of George I." [1727]

      _J. Timbs,
      Clubs and Club Life in London,
      pages 33-38._

MOIRA, Lord (Marquis of Hastings), The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MOJOS,
MOXOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MÖKERN, Battle of (1813).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

MOLAI, Jacques de, and the fall of the Templars.

      See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.

MOLASSES ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

MOLDAVIA.
MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MOLEMES, The Abbey of.

      See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

MOLINISTS, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

MOLINO DEL REY, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MOLINOS DEL REY, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

MOLLWITZ, Battle of (1741).

   See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

MOLOSSIANS, The.

      See HELLAS;
      and EPIRUS.

MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1866;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

MOLUCCAS: Secured by Spain (1524).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MONA.

   The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final
   seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans
   under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred
   groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

      See MONAPIA.

MONACANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
      and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

MONAPIA.

   "The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be
   unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the
   name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as
   representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was
   attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly
   Anglesea."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography.,
      chapter 24, section 2, foot-note._

MONASTERY.
MONASTICISM.
CONVENT.
ABBEY.
PRIORY.

   "Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the
   inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the
   offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between
   mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has
   asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of
   the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental
   mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism
   in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the
   Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the
   passionless man above him who regulates his passions,
   sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter
   abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all
   contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the
   cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in
   the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed
   over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in
   the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism,
   stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the
   faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted
   austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or
   eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and
   cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof
   and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the
   development of monasticism.
{2196}
   In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate
   cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the
   term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this
   sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of
   Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period
   the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title
   of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed
   'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the
   history of states and institutions in general, divides itself
   broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of
   decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the
   close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of
   Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of
   enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything
   is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in
   balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity,
   unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to
   be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble;
   the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed
   just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the
   monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made
   bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise.
   Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a
   sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother
   monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from
   idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth
   for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and
   obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered
   by a robber run after him to give him a something which has
   escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel.
   Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply
   endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree,
   another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a
   pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that
   he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The
   natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated,
   are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things
   material. … The period which follows, from the first
   Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature
   stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery,
   duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its
   subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its
   mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head,
   civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became
   subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went
   forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been
   for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have
   swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The
   Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and
   Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden,
   Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries
   were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France
   and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines
   in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the
   incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his
   cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of
   Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for
   instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing
   ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by
   recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was
   handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future
   generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the
   researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians,
   painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of
   Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were
   monks."

      _I. Gregory Smith,
      Christian Monasticism,
      introduction._

   "The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of
   Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in
   the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and
   lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread
   itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had
   to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven
   twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the
   Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial
   order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the
   Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their
   successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340
   that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape
   the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope
   Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led
   by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of
   Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which
   Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher
   Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these
   monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts
   and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman
   women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems
   already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became
   immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression
   produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious
   exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other
   visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time
   afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the
   request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of
   the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the
   West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend,
   and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this
   narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated
   the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were
   soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men
   distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived
   there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new
   institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or
   religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all
   Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence
   of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the
   continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the
   Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of
   Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world,
   went to take the place of the criminals and political victims
   whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. …
   Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had,
   since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule,
   instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate
   disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive
   or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St.
   Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet
   notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and
   Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as
   there were monasteries.
{2197}
   In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man
   made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his
   authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers.
   The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of
   the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a
   fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be
   endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and
   even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura,
   they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their
   chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a
   written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which
   determined the order of conventual life. In some houses
   various rules were practised at the same time, according to
   the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were
   changed according to the times and places. They passed thus
   from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according
   to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were
   everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was
   most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of
   monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men;
   but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence.
   Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary
   degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a
   considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was
   denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the
   fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have
   fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St.
   Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430,
   after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards
   450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and
   Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations
   rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension
   of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the
   history of the monks of the West would only have been, like
   that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the
   annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and
   best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises
   which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the
   new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth
   century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would
   concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and
   intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule;
   a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to
   establish and govern the future. God provided for that
   necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

      _Count de Montalembert,
      The Monks of the West,
      volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515._

   "The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek
   word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person,
   living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery
   meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a
   society of men or women who lived together in common—who were
   supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one
   common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their
   common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain
   employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the
   common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by
   side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members
   of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When
   I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that
   the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly
   in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a
   religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is
   that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an
   association of persons who have come together with a view to
   live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the
   ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common
   dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons
   inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of
   monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or
   selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and
   Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the
   Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's,
   Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St.
   Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in
   theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was
   supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in
   the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and
   making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter.
   … The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It
   was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the
   monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to
   the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or
   great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of
   the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a
   covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls,
   was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in
   stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and
   workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into
   the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of
   the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they
   taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a
   cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the
   better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the
   Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing
   known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term.
   It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was
   first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for
   any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated
   in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour
   in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be
   said that all English monks were professedly under one and the
   same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a
   monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which
   regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St.
   Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was
   not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it
   had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the
   Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French
   monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old
   Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved
   Rule.
{2198}
   These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the
   great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of
   things had begun. The first English house of reformed or
   Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after
   the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or
   small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an
   absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions
   often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of
   country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which
   were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject
   houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was
   independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in
   fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in
   England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were
   mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which
   each priory paid heavy tribute."

      _A. Jessopp,
      The Coming of the Friars,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquity of the Christ. Ch.,
      book 7, chapter 3, sections 11-14._

      _I. G. Smith,
      Christian Monasticism, 4-9th Centuries._

      See, also,
      CŒNOBIUM;
      LAURAS;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      BENEDICTINE;
      CISTERCIAN;
      CARMELITE,
      and AUSTIN CANONS.

MONASTERIES, The English, Suppression of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

   See LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL.

MONASTIC ORDERS.

   See AUSTIN CANONS;
   BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
   CAPUCHINS;
   CARMELITE FRIARS;
   CARTHUSIAN;
   CISTERCIAN;
   CLAIRVAUX;
   CLUGNY;
   MENDICANT ORDERS;
   RECOLLECTS;
   SERVITES;
   THEATINES;
   TRAPPISTS.

MONÇON,
MONZON, Treaty of (1626).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONCONTOUR, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

   ----------MONEY AND BANKING: Start--------

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Nature and Origin of Money.

   "When the division of labour has been once thoroughly
   established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants
   which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies
   the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part
   of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his
   own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's
   labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by
   exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the
   society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial
   society. But when the division of labour first began to take
   place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very
   much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we
   shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself
   has occasion for, while another has less. The former
   consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to
   purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter
   should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need
   of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more
   meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer
   and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part
   of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the
   different productions of their respective trades, and the
   butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which
   he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case,
   be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency
   of such situations, every prudent man in every period of
   society, after the first establishment of the division of
   labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs
   in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the
   peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of
   some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people
   would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their
   industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were
   successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In
   the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the
   common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been
   a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were
   frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had
   been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says
   Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an
   hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of
   commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in
   some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland;
   tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies;
   hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is
   at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not
   uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of
   money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries,
   however, men seem at last to have been determined by
   irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this
   employment, to metals above every other commodity."

      _Adam Smith,
      Wealth of Nations,
      chapter 4, book 1 (volume 1)._

   "There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as
   money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to
   the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call
   the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange
   … one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever
   made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities
   have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but
   uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized
   economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of
   civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary
   commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and
   urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in
   civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more
   costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to
   the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in
   non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is
   the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be
   preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their
   principal article of clothing and their principal export in
   the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower
   agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of
   cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the
   disposal of all.
{2199}
   If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom
   payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what
   to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges
   for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the
   purpose of money much later than the commodities above
   mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the
   non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be
   universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be
   obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and
   silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early
   felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of
   exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races,
   much depends on the nature of the metals with which the
   geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In
   general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The
   higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent
   is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the
   more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted
   to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able
   to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great.
   Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of
   David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver
   money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century
   before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The
   Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before
   Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern
   nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the
   first to have coined gold in any quantity."

      _W. Roscher,
      Principles of Political Economy,
      book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1)._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.

   "Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a
   necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable
   that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the
   temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely
   ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of
   Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that
   this was really the case. As regards the commercial and
   banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely
   without information. Their standard of value seems to have
   been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which
   circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in
   the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was
   obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as
   early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have
   been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were
   sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings,
   resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said
   to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and
   still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This
   approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it
   wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.'
   Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any
   public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very
   inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that
   which prevails in China even at the present day. The first
   money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the
   Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the
   Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in
   Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated
   as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken
   by weight and verified by the balance like any other
   merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which
   have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded
   us some interesting information as to the commercial
   arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a
   considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records
   relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed
   rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of
   land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were
   engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M.
   Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five
   principal types:

      1. Simple obligations.
      2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment.
      One he gives which had 79 days to run.
      3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party.
      4. Obligations payable to a third person.
      5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

   These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of
   things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay
   was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these
   circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It
   seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It
   is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially
   letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The
   earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to
   be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are
   indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price.
   Several documents and records belonging to this family are in
   the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were
   discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of
   Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have
   acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of
   the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib,
   about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century
   and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of
   Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated
   scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers,
   in our sense of the word."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      The History of Money
      (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879)._

   "We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm,
   beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some
   five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are
   dated month after month and year after year, and thus they
   afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very
   uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet
   in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in
   the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the
   time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of
   one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it
   will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse
   until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show
   that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead
   one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not
   certain at present."

      _E. A. W. Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      page 115._

{2200}

   "It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking,
   rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were
   in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious
   Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of
   the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were
   accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to
   reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great
   market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages
   is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is
   confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has
   translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and
   his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land
   to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern
   commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit
   to the number and variety of the agreements that might be
   entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves
   readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made
   after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless
   baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was
   kept by the party interested till the contract was completed,
   and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt.
   Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another
   person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could
   be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any
   formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a
   negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the
   commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of
   course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say
   that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a
   third party. Such third party could again either assign his
   claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had
   a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that,
   a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The
   debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a
   formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it
   to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as
   synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon
   So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In
   ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a
   loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt,
   judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the
   creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor
   acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed.
   In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one
   person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in
   the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred
   and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and
   credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered
   rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the
   country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular
   debtor."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 320-322._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   China.

   "Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early
   period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some
   writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B.
   C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court
   was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that
   the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any
   princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was
   customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first
   decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white
   deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted,
   and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But
   although they appear to have passed from one noble to another,
   they do not seem ever to have entered into general
   circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian
   skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the
   skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too
   bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward.
   Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of
   possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when
   the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to
   have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of
   Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called
   'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though
   not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led
   to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the
   notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to
   buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been
   abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang
   (960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person
   who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor
   'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended.
   Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue
   which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three
   years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper,
   or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk,
   who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of
   the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact
   of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at
   the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and
   interesting account of the note system, which he greatly
   admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the
   ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact,
   has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know
   all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility
   of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to
   great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly
   afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden
   als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth
   not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of
   papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money,
   nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende
   ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been
   himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent
   outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to
   a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great
   discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth
   century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and
   appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit
   father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about
   1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money
   having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo;
   though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be
   observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from
   ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight.
{2201}
   Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally
   purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but
   this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were
   only payable at certain specified periods."

      _Sir J. Lubbock,
      The History of Money
      (Nineteenth Century, November, 1879)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Vissering,
      On Chinese Currency._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Coinage in its Beginnings.

   "Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining,
   gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in
   bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most
   primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among
   pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary
   mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of
   this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in
   comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle
   in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,'
   says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to
   introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of
   the father of history must not, however, be accepted as
   finally settling the vexed question as to who were the
   inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian
   Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received
   tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver
   coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently
   contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile
   with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the
   European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold
   was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh
   century before our era; and that silver was first struck in
   European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are
   simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one
   side the signet of the state or of the community responsible
   for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight.
   Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse
   showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil
   on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was
   placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second
   workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third
   man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his
   might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or
   obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the
   mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process
   was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die
   beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the
   sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is
   called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the
   unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an
   indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which
   are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both
   sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct
   classes:

   (a) Mythological or religious representations, and
   (b) portraits of historical persons.

   From the earliest times down to the age of Alexander the Great
   the types of Greek coins are almost exclusively religious.
   However strange this may seem at first, it is not difficult to
   explain. It must be borne in mind that when the enterprising
   and commercial Lydians first lighted upon the happy idea of
   stamping metal for general circulation, a guarantee of just
   weight and purity of metal would be the one condition
   required. … What more binding guarantee could be found than
   the invocation of one or other of those divinities most
   honoured and most dreaded in the district in which the coin
   was intended to circulate. There is even good reason to think
   that the earliest coins were actually struck within the
   precincts of the temples, and under the direct auspices of the
   priests; for in times of general insecurity by sea and land,
   the temples alone remained sacred and inviolate."

      _B. V. Head,
      Greek Coins
      Coins and Medals, edited by S. Lane-Poole, chapter 2._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Early Banking.

   "The banker's calling is both new and old. As a distinct
   branch of commerce, and a separate agent in the advancement of
   civilisation, its history hardly extends over 300 years; but,
   in a rude and undeveloped sort of way, it has existed during
   some dozens of centuries. It began almost with the beginning
   of society. No sooner had men learnt to adopt a portable and
   artificial equivalent for their commodities, and thus to buy
   and sell and get gain more easily, than the more careful of
   them began to gather up their money in little heaps, or in
   great heaps, if they were fortunate enough. These heaps were,
   by the Romans, called montes—mounds, or banks,—and
   henceforth every money-maker was a primitive banker. The
   prudent farmers and shopkeepers in the out-of-the-way
   villages, who now lock up their savings in strong boxes, or
   conceal them in places where they are least likely to be found
   by thieves, show us how the richest and most enterprising men
   of far-off times, whether in Anglo-Saxon or mediæval Britain,
   ancient Greece and Rome, China or Judæa, made banks for
   themselves before the great advantages of joint-stock heaping
   up of money were discovered. When and in what precise way that
   discovery was made antiquarians have yet to decide. …
   Perhaps Jews and Greeks set the example to the modern world.
   Every rich Athenian had his treasurer or money-keeper, and
   whenever any particular treasurer proved himself a good
   accountant and safe banker, it is easy to understand how, from
   having one master, he came to have several, until he was able
   to change his condition of slavery for the humble rank of a
   freedman, and then to use his freedom to such good purpose
   that he became an influential member of the community. Having
   many people's money, entrusted to his care, he received good
   payment for his responsible duty, and he quickly learned to
   increase his wealth by lending out his own savings, if not his
   employers' capital, at the highest rate of interest that he
   could obtain. The Greek bankers were chiefly famous as
   money-lenders, and interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum
   was not considered unusually exorbitant among them. For their
   charges they were often blamed by spendthrifts, satirists, and
   others. 'It is said,' complains Plutarch, 'that hares bring
   forth and nourish their young at the same time that they
   conceive again; but the debts of these scoundrels and savages
   bring forth before they conceive, for they give and
   immediately demand again; they take away their money at the
   same time as they put it out; they place at interest what they
   receive as interest. The Messenians have a proverb: "There is
   a Pylos before Pylos, and yet another Pylos still."
{2202}
   So of the usurers it may be said, "There is a profit before
   profit, and yet another profit still;" and then, forsooth,
   they laugh at philosophers, who say that nothing can come out
   of nothing!' The Greek bankers and money-lenders, those of
   Delos and Delphi especially, are reported to have used the
   temples as treasure-houses, and to have taken the priests into
   partnership in their money-making. Some arrangement of that
   sort seems to have existed among the Jews, and to have aroused
   the anger of Jesus when he went into the Temple of Jerusalem,
   'and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and said unto
   them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of
   prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Bankers' or
   money-changers' tables were famous institutions all over the
   civilised world of the ancients. Livy tells how, in 308 B. C.,
   if not before, they were to be found in the Roman Forum, and
   later Latin authors make frequent allusions to banking
   transactions of all sorts. They talk of deposits and
   securities, bills of exchange and drafts to order, cheques and
   bankers' books, as glibly as a modern merchant. But these
   things were nearly forgotten during the dark ages, until the
   Jews, true to the money-making propensities that characterised
   them while they still had a country of their own, set the
   fashion of money-making and of banking in all the countries of
   Europe through which they were dispersed."

      _H. R. Fox Bourne,
      Romance of Trade,
      chapter 4._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Ancient Greece.

   "Oriental contact first stirred the 'auri sacra fames' in the
   Greek mind. That this was so the Greek language itself tells
   plainly. For 'chrusos,' gold, is a Semitic loan-word, closely
   related to the Hebrew 'charuz,' but taken immediately, there
   can be no reasonable doubt, from the Phœnician. The restless
   treasure-seekers from Tyre were, indeed, as the Græco-Semitic
   term metal intimates, the original subterranean explorers of
   the Balkan peninsula. As early, probably, as the 15th century
   B. C. they 'digged out ribs of gold' on the islands of Thasos
   and Siphnos, and on the Thracian mainland at Mount Pangæum;
   and the fables of the Golden Fleece, and of Arimaspian wars
   with gold-guarding griffins, prove the hold won by the
   'precious bane' over the popular imagination. Asia Minor was,
   however, the chief source of prehistoric supply, the native
   mines lying long neglected after the Phœnicians had been
   driven from the scene. Midas was a typical king in a land
   where the mountains were gold-granulated, and the rivers ran
   over sands of gold. And it was in fact from Phrygia that
   Pelops was traditionally reported to have brought the
   treasures which made Mycenæ the golden city of the Achæan
   world. The Epic affluence in gold was not wholly fictitious.
   From the sepulchres of Mycenæ alone about one hundred pounds
   Troy weight of the metal have been disinterred; freely at
   command even in the lowest stratum of the successive
   habitations at Hissarlik, it was lavishly stored, and highly
   wrought in the picturesquely-named 'treasure of Priam'; and
   has been found, in plates and pearls, beneath twenty metres of
   volcanic debris, in the Cyclatic islands Thera and Therapia.
   This plentifulness contrasts strangely with the extreme
   scarcity of gold in historic Greece. It persisted, however,
   mainly owing to the vicinity of the auriferous Ural Mountains,
   in the Milesian colony of Panticapæum, near Kertch, where
   graves have been opened containing corpses shining 'like
   images' in a complete clothing of gold-leaf, and equipped with
   ample supplies of golden vessels and ornaments. Silver was, at
   the outset, a still rarer substance than gold. Not that there
   is really less of it. … But it occurs less obviously, and is
   less easy to obtain pure. Accordingly, in some very early
   Egyptian inscriptions, silver, by heading the list of metals,
   claims a supremacy over them which proved short-lived. It
   terminated for ever with the scarcity that had produced it,
   when the Phœnicians began to pour the flood of Spanish silver
   into the markets and treasure-chambers of the East. Armenia
   constituted another tolerably copious source of supply; and it
   was in this quarter that Homer located the 'birth-place of
   silver.'"

      _A. M. Clerke,
      Familiar Studies in Homer,
      chapter 10._

   "Taken as a whole the Greek money is excellent; pure in metal
   and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal
   value. Nothing better has been done in this way among the most
   civilized and best governed nations of modern times. There is,
   indeed, always a certain recognized limit, which keeps the
   actual weight of the money slightly below its theoretical
   weight; and this fact recurs with such regularity that it may
   be regarded as a rule. We must conclude, therefore, that it
   was under this form that Greek civilization allowed to the
   coiner of money the right of seigniorage, or the benefit
   legitimately due to him to cover the expenses of the coinage,
   and in exchange for the service rendered by him to the public
   in providing them with money, by which they were saved the
   trouble of perpetual weighing. This allowance, however, is
   always kept within very narrow limits, and is never more than
   the excess of the natural value of the coined money over that
   of the metal in ingots. … Of course, the general and
   predominant fact of the excellence of the Greek money in the
   time of Hellenic independence is subject, like all human
   things, to some exceptions. There were a few cities which
   yielded to the delusive bait of an unlawful advantage,
   debasing the quality of their coins without foreseeing that
   the consequences of this unfair operation would react against
   themselves. But these exceptions are very rare."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February; 1879)._

   "The quantity, particularly of gold, … was, in the earlier
   historical periods, according to unexceptionable testimony,
   extremely small. In the time of Crœsus, according to
   Theopompus, gold was not to be found for sale in any of the
   Greek States. The Spartans, needing some for a votive
   offering, wished to purchase a quantity from Crœsus;
   manifestly because he was the nearest person from whom it
   could be obtained. … Even during the period from the
   seventieth to the eightieth Olympiads, (B. C. 500-460,) pure
   gold was a rarity. When Hiero of Syracuse wished to send a
   tripod and a statue of the Goddess of Victory, made of pure
   gold, to the Delphian Apollo, he could not procure the
   requisite quantity of metal until his agents applied to the
   Corinthian Architiles, who, as was related by the
   above-mentioned Theopompus and Phanias of Eresus, had long
   been in the practice of purchasing gold in small quantities,
   and hoarding it. Greece proper itself did not possess many
   mines of precious metals. The most important of the few which
   it possessed were the Attic silver mines of Laurion.
{2203}
   These were at first very productive. … Asia and Africa
   furnished incomparably a larger quantity of the precious
   metals than was procured in Greece and the other European
   countries. … Colchis, Lydia, and Phrygia, were distinguished
   for their abundance of gold. Some derive the tradition of the
   golden fleece from the gold washings in Colchis. Who has not
   heard of the riches of Midas, and Gyges, and Crœsus, the gold
   mines of the mountains Tmolus and Sipylus, the gold-sand of
   the Pactolus? … From the very productive gold mines of
   India, together with its rivers flowing with gold, among which
   in particular the Ganges may be classed, arose the fable of
   the gold-digging ants. From these annual revenues the royal
   treasure was formed. By this a great quantity of precious
   metal was kept from circulation. It was manifestly their
   principle to coin only as much gold and silver as was
   necessary for the purposes of trade, and for the expenditures
   of the State. In Greece, also, great quantities were kept from
   circulation, and accumulated in treasuries. There were locked
   up in the citadel of Athens 9,700 talents of coined silver,
   besides the gold and silver vessels and utensils. The Delphian
   god possessed a great number of the most valuable articles.
   … The magnificent expenditures of Pericles upon public
   edifices and structures, for works of the plastic arts, for
   theatrical exhibitions, and in carrying on wars, distributed
   what Athens had collected, into many hands. The temple-robbing
   Phocians coined from the treasures at Delphi ten thousand
   talents in gold and silver; and this large sum was consumed by
   war. Philip of Macedonia, in fine, carried on his wars as much
   with gold as with arms. Thus a large amount of money came into
   circulation in the period between the commencement of the
   Persian wars and the age of Demosthenes. The precious metals,
   therefore, must of necessity have depreciated in value, as
   they did at a later period, when Constantine the Great caused
   money to be coined from the precious articles found in the
   heathen temples. But what a quantity of gold and silver flowed
   through Alexander's conquest of Asia into the western
   countries! Allowing that his historians exaggerate, the main
   point, however, remains certain. … Alexander's successors
   not only collected immense sums, but by their wars again put
   them into circulation. … The enormous taxes which were
   raised in the Macedonian kingdoms, the revelry and extravagant
   liberality of the kings, which passed all bounds, indicate the
   existence of an immense amount of ready money."

      _A. Boeckh,
      The Public Economy of the Athenians,
      book 1, chapter 3._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Phœnicia.

   "Nearly all the silver in common use for trade throughout the
   East was brought into the market by the Phœnicians. The silver
   mines were few and distant; the trade was thus a monopoly,
   worth keeping so by the most savage treatment of suspected
   rivals, and, as a monopoly, so lucrative that, but for the
   long and costly voyage between Spain and Syria, the merchant
   would have seemed to get his profit for nothing. … The use
   of silver money, though it did not originate with the
   Phœnicians, was no doubt promoted by their widespread
   dealings. The coins were always of known weight, and standing
   in a well-known relation to the bars used for large
   transactions."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, page 400._

   "It is a curious fact that coinage in Phoenicia, one of the
   most commercial of ancient countries, should have been late in
   origin, and apparently not very plentiful. There are, in fact,
   no coins of earlier period than the third century which we can
   with certainty attribute to the great cities of Tyre and
   Sidon. Some modern writers, however, consider that many of the
   coins generally classed under Persia—notably those bearing
   the types of a chariot, a galley, and an owl respectively—
   were issued by those cities in the 5th and 4th centuries B. C.
   But it is certain, in any case, that the Phoenicians were far
   behind the Greeks in the art of moneying. With the invasion of
   Persia by Alexander the Great came a great change; and all the
   ancient landmarks of Asiatic government and order were swept
   away. During the life of Alexander the Great the coins bearing
   his name and his types circulated throughout Asia; and after
   his death the same range of currency was attained by the money
   of the early Seleucid Kings of Syria—Seleucis I., Antiochus
   I., and Antiochus II., who virtually succeeded to the
   dominions of the Persian Kings, and tried in many respects to
   carry on their policy. Of these monarchs we possess a splendid
   series of coins."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Coins and Medals,
      chapter 6._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   The Jews.

   "It would seem that, until the middle of the second century B.
   C., the Jews either weighed out gold and silver for the 'Price
   of goods, or else used the money usually current in Syria,
   that of Persia, Phoenicia, Athens, and the Seleucidae. Simon
   the Maccabee was the first to issue the Jewish shekel as a
   coin, and we learn from the Book of Maccabees that the
   privilege of striking was expressly granted him by King
   Antiochus VII. of Syria. We possess shekels of years 1-5 of
   the deliverance of Zion; the types are a chalice and a triple
   flower. The kings who succeeded Simon, down to Antigonus,
   confined themselves to the issue of copper money, with Hebrew
   legends and with types calculated not to shock the susceptible
   feelings of their people, to whom the representation of a
   living thing was abominable—such types as a lily, a palm, a
   star, or an anchor. When the Herodian family came in, several
   violations of this rule appear."

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Coins and Medals,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. C. Williamson,
      The Money of the Bible._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Rome.

   "In Rome the generic terms for money seem to have been
   successively, pecunia, As, nummns, and moneta. … Moneta …
   is derived from the name of the temple in which, or in a
   building to or next to which the money of Rome was coined
   after the defeat of Pyrrhus, B. a. 275, more probably after
   the capture of Tarentum by the Romans, B. C. 272. It probably
   did not come into use until after the era of Scipio, and then
   was only used occasionally until the period of the Empire,
   when it and its derivatives became more common. Nummus,
   nevertheless, continued to hold its ground until towards the
   decline of the Empire, when it went entirely out of use, and
   moneta and its derivatives usurped its place, which it has
   continued to hold ever since. Moneta is therefore
   substantially a term of the Dark Ages. … The idea associated
   with moneta is coins, whose value was derived mainly from that
   of the material of which they were composed; whilst the idea
   associated with nummus is a system of symbols whose value was
   derived from legal limitation.
{2204}
   From the fact that our language sprang from the Dark Ages, we
   have no generic word for money other than moneta, which only
   relates to one kind of money. For a similar reason, the
   comparative newness of the English tongue, we have no word for
   a piece of money except coin, which, properly speaking, only
   relates to one kind of piece, namely, that which is struck by
   the cuneus."

      _A. Del Mar,
      History of Money in Ancient Countries,
      chapter 28._

   The extent and energy of the Roman traffic, in the great age
   of the Republic, during the third and second centuries before
   Christ, "may be traced most distinctly by means of coins and
   monetary relations. The Roman denarius kept pace with the
   Roman legions. … The Sicilian mints—last of all that of
   Syracuse in 542—were closed or at any rate restricted to
   small money in consequence of the Roman conquest, and … in
   Sicily and Sardinia the denarius obtained legal circulation at
   least side by side with the older silver currency and probably
   very soon became the exclusive legal tender. With equal if not
   greater rapidity the Roman silver coinage penetrated into
   Spain, where the great silver-mines existed and there was
   virtually no earlier national coinage; at a very early period
   the Spanish towns even began to coin after the Roman standard.
   On the whole, as Carthage coined only to a very limited
   extent, there existed not a single important mint in addition
   to that of Rome in the region of the western Mediterranean,
   with the exception of the mint of Massilia and perhaps also of
   those of the Illyrian Greeks at Apollonia and Epidamnus.
   Accordingly, when the Romans began to establish themselves in
   the region of the Po, these mints were about 225 subjected to
   the Roman standard in such a way, that, while they retained
   the right of coining silver, they uniformly—and the
   Massiliots in particular—were led to adjust their drachma to
   the weight of the Roman three-quarter denarius, which the
   Roman government on its part began to coin, primarily for the
   use of upper Italy, under the name of the 'piece of Victory'
   (victoriatus). This new system, based on the Roman, prevailed
   throughout the Massiliot, Upper Italian, and Illyrian
   territories; and these coins even penetrated into the
   barbarian lands on the north, those of Massilia, for instance,
   into the Alpine districts along the whole basin of the Rhone,
   and those of Illyria as far as the modern Transylvania. The
   eastern half of the Mediterranean was not yet reached by the
   Roman money, as it had not yet fallen under the direct
   sovereignty of Rome; but its place was filled by gold, the
   true and natural medium for international and transmarine
   commerce. It is true that the Roman government, in conformity
   with its strictly conservative character, adhered—with the
   exception of a temporary coinage of gold occasioned by the
   financial embarrassment during the Hannibalic war—steadfastly
   to the rule of coining silver only in addition to the
   national-Italian copper; but commerce had already assumed such
   dimensions, that it was able in the absence of money to
   conduct its transactions with gold by weight. Of the sum in
   cash, which lay in the Roman treasury in 597, scarcely a sixth
   was coined or uncoined silver, five-sixths consisted of gold
   in bars, and beyond doubt the precious metals were found in
   all the chests of the larger Roman capitalists in
   substantially similar proportions. Already therefore gold held
   the first place in great transactions; and, as may be inferred
   from this fact, the preponderance of traffic was maintained
   with foreign lands, and particularly with the East, which
   since the times of Philip and Alexander the Great had adopted
   a gold currency. The whole gain from these immense
   transactions of the Roman capitalists flowed in the long run
   to Rome. … The moneyed superiority of Rome as compared with
   the rest of the civilized world was, accordingly, quite as
   decided as its political and military ascendancy. Rome in this
   respect stood towards other countries somewhat as the England
   of the present day stands towards the continent."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

   In the later years of the Roman Republic the coinage became
   debased and uncertain. "Cæsar restored the public credit by
   issuing good money, such as had not been seen in Rome for a
   length of time, money of pure metal and exact weight; with
   scarcely any admixture of plated pieces, money which could
   circulate for its real value, and this measure became one of
   the principal sources of his popularity. Augustus followed his
   example, but at the same time took away from the Senate the
   right of coining gold and silver, reserving this exclusively
   to the imperial authority, which was to exercise it absolutely
   without control. From this time we find the theory that the
   value of money is arbitrary, and depends solely on the will of
   the sovereign who issues it, more and more widely and
   tenaciously held. … The faith placed in the official impress
   fostered the temptation to abuse it. … In less than a
   century the change of the money of the State into imperial
   money, and the theory that its value arose from its bearing
   the effigy of the sovereign, produced a system of adulteration
   of specie, which went on growing to the very close of the
   Empire, and which the successors of Augustus utilized largely
   for the indulgence of their passions and their prodigality."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Money in Ancient Greece and Rome
      (Contemporary Review, February, 1879)._

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Mediæval Money and Banking.

   As regards the monetary system of the Middle Ages, the
   precious metals, when uncoined, were weighed by the pound and
   half pound or mark, for which different standards were in use,
   the most generally recognised being those of Troyes and
   Cologne. Of coined money there existed a perplexing variety,
   which made it almost impossible to ascertain the relative
   value, not only of different coins, but of the same coin of
   different issues. This resulted from the emperor or king
   conferring the right of coinage upon various lords spiritual
   and temporal, from whom it was ultimately acquired by
   individual towns. The management was in most cases entrusted
   to a company, temporary or permanent, inspected by an
   official, the coin-tester, originally appointed by the
   sovereign, but afterwards by the company, and confirmed by the
   king or bishop. The house where the process of coining was
   performed was called the mint, and the company who held the
   rights of coinage in fee was known as the Mint House Company,
   or simply the House Company. Very generally the office was
   held by the Corporation of Goldsmiths. The want of perfect
   supervision led to great debasement of the currency,
   especially in Germany and France; but in England and Italy the
   standard was tolerably well maintained.
{2205}
   Payments in silver were much more common than in gold. Before
   the Crusades the only gold coins known in Europe were the
   Byzantine solides, the Italian tari, and Moorish maurabotini.
   The solidi, which were originally of 23 to 23½ carat gold, but
   subsequently very much deteriorated, were reckoned as equal to
   twelve silver denars. They passed current in Southern and
   Eastern Europe, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Prussia. …
   Solde, sol, and sou are only repeated transformations of the
   name of the coin, which have been accompanied by still greater
   changes in its value. The tari or tarentini derived its name
   from the Italian town where it was originally struck. It was
   less generally known than the solides, and was equal to
   one-fourth the latter in value. The maurabotini or sarazens
   were only of 15 carats gold. The name survives in the Spanish
   maravedi, which, however, like the sou, is now made of copper
   instead of gold. In the thirteenth century augustals,
   florentines, and ducats, or zecchins (sequins), were coined in
   Italy. The first-mentioned, the weight of which was half an
   ounce, were named in honour of Frederick II., who was Roman
   Cæsar and Augustus in 1252. The florentines, also known as
   gigliati, or lilies, from the arms of Florence, which they
   bore on one side, with the effigy of John the Baptist on the
   reverse, were of fine gold and lighter than the solidi, about
   64 being reckoned equal to the mark. The ducats or zecchins
   were of Venetian origin, receiving their first name from the
   Duca or Doge, and the other from the Zecca or Mint House. They
   were somewhat less in value than the florentines, 66 or 67
   being counted to the fine mark. Nearly equivalent in value to
   these Italian coins were the gold guilders coined in the
   fourteenth century in Hungary and the Rhine regions. The
   Rhenish guilder was of 22½ or 23 carats fine, and in weight
   1/66; of a mark of Cologne. The silver guilder was of later
   production, and the name is now used as equivalent to florin.
   … In silver payments, the metal being usually nearly pure,
   it was common to compute by weight, coins and uncoined bullion
   being alike put into the scale, as is still the case in some
   Eastern countries. Hence the origin of the pound, livre, or
   mark. The most widely diffused silver coin was the denarius,
   which was, as in ancient Roman times, the 11/240 of a pound.
   The name pending or pennig, by which the denarius was known
   among the old Teutonic nations, seems to be connected with
   pendere, to weigh out or pay; as the other ancient Teutonic
   coin, the sceat, was with sceoton, to pay, a word which is
   preserved in the modern phrases 'scot free,' 'pay your scot.'
   … Half-pennies and farthings were not known in the earliest
   times, but the penny was deeply indented by two cross lines,
   which enabled it to be broken into quarters or farthings
   (feordings or fourthings). From the indented cross the
   denarius was known in Germany as the kreutzer. … With such a
   diversity of coinage, it was necessary to settle any
   mercantile transaction in the currency of the place. Not only
   would sellers have refused to accept money whose value was
   unknown to them, but in many places they were forbidden to do
   so by law. Merchants attending foreign markets therefore
   brought with them a quantity of fine silver and gold in bars,
   which they exchanged on the spot for the current coin of the
   place, to be used in settling their transactions; the balance
   remaining on hand they re-exchanged for bullion before
   leaving. The business of money-changing, which thus arose, was
   a very lucrative one, and was originally mostly in the hands
   of Italian merchants, chiefly Lombards and Florentines. In
   Italy the money-changers formed a guild, members of which
   settled in the Netherlands, England, Cologne, and the
   Mediterranean ports. In these different towns and countries
   they kept up a close connection with each other and with
   Italy, and at an early period (before the thirteenth century)
   commenced the practice of assignments, i. e., receiving money
   in one place, to be paid by an order upon their correspondents
   in another, thus saving the merchant who travelled from
   country to country the expense and risk of transporting
   specie. In the thirteenth century this branch of business was
   in extensive use at Barcelona, and in 1307 the tribute of
   'Peter's pence' was sent from England to the Pope through the
   Lombard exchangers. From 5 to 6 per cent., or more, was
   charged upon the transaction, and the profitable nature of the
   business soon led many wealthy and even noble Italian families
   to employ their money in this way. They established a member
   of their firm in each of the great centres of trade to receive
   and pay on their account. In Florence alone (about 1350) there
   are said to have been eighty such houses. Among these the
   Frescobaldi, Bardi, and Peruzzi are well-known names; but the
   chief place was taken by the famous Florentine house of the
   Medici, who had banking houses established in sixteen of the
   chief cities of Europe and the Levant. In the north of Europe,
   before long, similar arrangements were established by the
   merchants of the Hanseatic League. … Assignments of this
   kind were drawn out in the form of letters, requesting the
   person by whom the money was due to pay it over to another
   party, named in the bill, on account of the writer, specifying
   also the time within which and the form in which the payment
   was to be made. They were thus known as letters, billets, or
   bills of exchange, and appear in Italy as early as the
   thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Among the earliest
   examples in existence are a letter of exchange, dated at Milan
   in 1325, payable within five months at Lucca; one dated at
   Bruges, 1304, and payable at Barcelona; and another, dated at
   Bologna, 1381, payable in Venice. … 'The first writers who
   treat of bills are Italians: the Italian language furnishes
   the technical terms for drafts, remittances, currency, sight,
   usance, and discount, used in most of the languages of
   Europe.' … Of other branches of banking the germs also
   appeared in the Middle Ages. Venice seems to have been the
   first city to possess something answering to a deposit bank.
   The merchants here united in forming a common treasury, where
   they deposited sums of money, upon which they gave assignments
   or orders for payment to their creditors, and to which similar
   assignments due to themselves were paid and added on to the
   amount at their credit. The taula di cambi (exchange counter)
   of Barcelona was a similar institution, as also the bank of
   St. George, at Genoa."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      appendix F._

   The name "Lombards" was frequently given, during the Middle
   Ages, to all the Italian merchants and money-lenders—from
   Florence, Venice, Genoa, and elsewhere—who were engaged
   throughout Europe in banking and trade.

{2206}

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Florentine Banking.

   "The business of money-changing seemed thoroughly at home
   here, and it is not surprising that the invention of bills of
   exchange, which we first meet with in 1199 in the relations
   between England and Italy, should be ascribed to Florence. The
   money trade seems to have flourished as early as the twelfth
   century, towards the end of which a Marquis of Ferrara raised
   money on his lands from the Florentines. In 1204 we find the
   money-changers as one of the corporations. In 1228, and
   probably from the beginning of the century, several
   Florentines were settled in London as changers to King Henry
   III.; and here, as in France, they conducted the money
   transactions of the Papal chair in conjunction with the
   Sienese. Their oldest known statute, which established rules
   for the whole conduct of trade (Statuto dell' Università della
   Mercatanzia) drawn up by a commission consisting of five
   members of the great guilds, is dated 1280. Their guild-hall
   was in the Via Calimaruzza, opposite that of the Calimala, and
   was litter included in the buildings of the post-office, on
   the site of which, after the post-office had been removed to
   what was formerly the mint, a building was lately erected,
   similar in architecture to the Palazzo of the Signoria, which
   stands opposite. Their coat of arms displayed gold coins laid
   one beside another on a red field. At the end of the
   thirteenth century their activity, especially in France and
   England, was extraordinarily great. But if wealth surpassing
   all previous conception was attained, it not seldom involved
   loss of repute, and those who pursued the calling ran the risk
   of immense losses from fiscal measures to the carrying out of
   which they themselves contributed, as well as those which were
   caused by insolvency or dishonesty. … The names of Tuscans
   and Lombards, and that of Cahorsiens in France, no longer
   indicated the origin, but the trade of the money-changers, who
   drew down the ancient hatred upon themselves. … France
   possessed at this time the greatest attraction for the
   Florentine money-makers, although they were sometimes severely
   oppressed, which is sufficient proof that their winnings were
   still greater than their occasional losses. … The Florentine
   money market suffered the severest blow from England. At the
   end of the twelfth century there were already Florentine
   houses of exchange in London, and if Pisans, Genoese, and
   Venetians managed the trade by sea in the times of the
   Crusades, it was the Florentines mostly who looked after
   financial affairs in connection with the Papal chair, as we
   have seen. Numerous banks appeared about the middle of the
   thirteenth century, among which the Frescobaldi, a family of
   ancient nobility, and as such attainted by the prosecutions
   against it, took the lead, and were referred to the
   custom-house of the country for re-imbursement of the loans
   made to the kings Edward I. and II. Later, the two great
   trading companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi came into notice,
   and with their money Edward III. began the French war against
   Philip of Valois. But even in the first year of this war,
   which began with an unsuccessful attack upon Flanders, the
   king suspended the payments to the creditors of the State by a
   decree of May 6, 1339. The advances made by the Bardi amounted
   to 180,000 marks sterling, those of the Peruzzi to above
   135,000, according to Giovanni Villani, who knew only too well
   about these things, since he was ruined by them himself to the
   extent of 'a sum of more than 1,355,000 gold florins,
   equivalent to the value of a kingdom.' Bonifazio Peruzzi, the
   head of the house, hastened to London, where he died of grief
   in the following year. The blow fell on the whole city. …
   Both houses began at once to liquidate, and the prevailing
   disturbance contributed not a little to the early success of
   the ambitious plans of the Duke of Athens. The real bankruptcy
   ensued, however, in January 1346, when new losses had occurred
   in Sicily. … The banks of the Acciaiuoli, Bonuccorsi,
   Cocchi, Antellesi, Corsini, da Uzzano, Perendoli, and many
   smaller ones, as well as numerous private persons, were
   involved in the ruin. 'The immense loans to foreign
   sovereigns,' adds Villani, 'drew down ruin upon our city, the
   like of which it had never known.' There was a complete lack
   of cash. Estates in the city found no purchasers at a third of
   their former value. … The famine and pestilence of 1347 and
   1348, the oppressions of the mercenary bands and the heavy
   expenses caused by them, the cost of the war against Pope
   Gregory XI., and finally the tumult of the Ciompi, left
   Florence no peace for a long time. … At the beginning of the
   fifteenth century industry was again flourishing in all its
   branches in Florence, financial operations were extended, and
   foreign countries filled with Florentine banks and mercantile
   houses. … In London the most important firms had their
   representatives, Bruges was the chief place for Flanders, and
   we shall see how these connections lasted to the time of the
   greatest splendour of the Medici. France is frequently
   mentioned. The official representatives of the Florentine
   nation resided in the capital, while numerous houses
   established themselves in Lyons, in Avignon (since the removal
   of the Papal chair to this town), in Nismes, Narbonne,
   Carcassonne, Marseilles, &c. … The house of the Peruzzi
   alone had sixteen counting-houses in the fourteenth century,
   from London to Cyprus."

      _A. van Reumont,
      Lorenzo de' Medici,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The three principal branches of industry which enriched the
   Florentines were—banking, the manufacture of cloth, and the
   dyeing of it, and the manufacture of silk. The three most
   important guilds of the seven 'arti maggiori' were those which
   represented these three industries. Perhaps the most important
   in the amount of its gains, as well as that which first rose
   to a high degree of importance, was the 'Arte del Cambio,' or
   banking. The earliest banking operations seem to have arisen
   from the need of the Roman court to find some means of causing
   the dues to which it laid claim in distant parts of Europe to
   be collected and transmitted to Rome. When the Papal Court was
   removed to Avignon, its residence there occasioned a greatly
   increased sending backwards and forwards of money between
   Italy and that city. And of all this banking business, the
   largest and most profitable portion was in the hands of
   Florentine citizens, whether resident in Florence or in the
   various commercial cities of Europe. We find Florentines
   engaged in lending money at interest to sovereign princes as
   early as the first quarter of the twelfth century."

      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

{2207}

MONEY AND BANKING:
   Genoa.
   The Bank of St. George.

   "The Bank of St. George, its constitution, its building, and
   its history, forms one of the most interesting relies of
   mediæval commercial activity. Those old grey walls, as seen
   still in Genoa, begrimed with dirt and fast falling into
   decay, are the cradle of modern commerce, modern banking
   schemes, and modern wealth. … This Bank of St. George is
   indeed a most singular political phenomenon. Elsewhere than in
   Genoa we search in vain for a parallel for the existence of a
   body of citizens distinct from the government—with their own
   laws, magistrates, and independent authority—a state within a
   state, a republic within a republic. All dealings with the
   government were voluntary on the part of the bank. … But,
   far from working without harmony, we always find the greatest
   unanimity of feeling between these two forms of republics
   within the same city walls. The government of Genoa always
   respected the liberties of the bank, and the bank always did
   its best to assist the government when in pecuniary distress.
   … To define an exact origin for the bank is difficult; it
   owed its existence to the natural development of commercial
   enterprise rather than to the genius of anyone man, or the
   shrewdness of any particular period in Genoese history. The
   Crusades, and the necessary preparation of galleys, brought
   into Genoa the idea of advancing capital for a term of years
   as a loan to the government on the security of the taxes and
   public revenues; but in those cases the profits were quickly
   realized, and the debts soon cancelled by the monarchs who
   incurred them. However, the expeditions against the Saracens
   and the Moors were otherwise, and were undertaken at some risk
   to Genoa herself. … Now large sums of money were advanced,
   the profits on which were not spontaneous; it was more an
   investment of capital for a longer term of years, which was
   secured by the public revenues, but the profits of which
   depended on the success of the expedition. In 1148 was the
   first formal debt incurred by the government, and to meet the
   occasion the same system was adopted which continued in vogue,
   subject only to regulations and improvements which were found
   necessary as time went on, until the days of the French
   Revolution. The creditors nominated from amongst themselves a
   council of administration to watch over the common interests,
   and to them the government conceded a certain number of the
   custom duties for a term of years until the debt should be
   extinguished. This council of administration elected their own
   consuls, after the fashion of the Republic governors. Every
   hundred francs was termed a share (luogo) and every creditor a
   shareholder (luogatorio). … Each separate loan was termed a
   'compera,' and these loans were collectively known as the
   'compere of St. George,' which in later years became the
   celebrated bank. Each loan generally took the name of the
   object for which it was raised, or the name of the saint on
   whose day the contract was signed; and when an advance of
   money was required, it was done by public auction in the
   streets, when the auctioneer sold the investment to the ever
   ready merchants, who collected outside the 'loggia,' or other
   prominent position chosen for the sale. In a loud voice was
   proclaimed the name and object of the loan, and the tax which
   was to be handed over to the purchasers to secure its
   repayment. So numerous did these loans become by 1252, that it
   was found necessary to unite them under one head, with a
   chancellor and other minor officials to watch over them. And
   as time went on, so great was the credit of Genoa, and so easy
   was this system found for raising money, that the people began
   to grow alarmed at the extent of the liabilities. So, in 1302,
   commissioners were appointed at a great assembly, two hundred
   and seventy-one articles and regulations were drown up to give
   additional security to investors, and henceforth no future
   loan could be effected without the sanction of the consuls and
   the confirmation of the greater council of the shareholders.
   … During the days of the first doge, Simone Boccanegra,
   great changes were to be effected in the working system of the
   'compere of St. George.' To this date many have assigned the
   origin of the Bank of St. George, but it will be seen only to
   be a further consolidation of the same system, which had
   already been at work two centuries. … In 1339, … at the
   popular revolution, all the old books were burnt, and a new
   commission appointed to regulate the 'compere.' … Instead
   … of being the origin of the bank, it was only another step
   in the growing wish for consolidation, which the expanding
   tendency of the 'compere' rendered necessary; which
   consolidation took final effect in 1407, when the Bank was
   thoroughly organized on the same footing which lasted till the
   end. Every year and every event tended towards this system of
   blending the loans together, to which fact is due the
   extensive power which the directors of the bank eventually
   wielded, when all interests and all petty disputes were merged
   together in one. … As time went on, and the French governor,
   Boucicault, weighed on the treasury the burden of fresh
   fortifications, and an expensive war; when Corsican troubles,
   and the Turks in the East, caused the advance of money to be
   frequent, an assembly of all the shareholders in all the loans
   decided that an entire reorganization of the public debts
   should take place. Nine men were elected to draw up a new
   scheme, in 1407, and by their instrumentality all the shares
   were united; the interest for all was to be seven per cent.,
   and fresh officials were appointed to superintend the now
   thoroughly constituted and re-named 'Bank of St. George.' And
   at length we behold this celebrated bank. Its credit never
   failed, and no anxiety was ever felt by any shareholder about
   his annual income, until the days of the French Revolution.
   … This Bank of St. George was essentially one of the times,
   and not one which could have existed on modern ideas of
   credit; for it was a bank which would only issue paper for the
   coin in its actual possession, and would hardly suit the
   dictates of modern commerce. It was not a bank for borrowers
   but for capitalists, who required enormous security for
   immense sums until they could employ them themselves. … One
   of the most interesting features in connection with the
   dealings of the bank with the Genoese government, and a
   conclusive proof of the perfect accord which existed between
   them, was the cession from time to time of various colonies
   and provinces to the directors of the bank when the government
   felt itself too weak and too poor to maintain them. In this
   manner were the colonies in the Black Sea made over to the
   bank when the Turkish difficulties arose.
{2208}
   Corsica and Cyprus, also towns on the Riviera, such as
   Sarzana, Ventimiglia, Levanto, found themselves at various
   times under the direct sovereignty of the bank. … It is
   melancholy to have to draw a veil over the career of this
   illustrious bank with the Revolution of 1798. The new order of
   things which Genoa had learnt from France deemed it
   inconsistent with liberty that the taxes, the property of the
   Republic, should remain in the hands of the directors of St.
   George; it was voted a tyranny on a small scale, and the
   directors were compelled to surrender them; and inasmuch as
   the taxes represented the sole source from which their income
   was derived, they soon discovered that their bank notes were
   useless, and the building was closed shortly afterwards. In
   1804 and 1814 attempts were made to resuscitate the fallen
   fortunes of St. George, but without avail; and so this bank,
   the origin of which was shrouded in the mysteries of bygone
   centuries, fell under the sweeping scythe of the French
   Revolution."

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17th Centuries.
   Monetary effects of the Discovery of America.

   "From 1492, the year of the discovery of the New World, to
   1500, it is doubtful whether [the mines of Mexico and Peru]
   … yielded on an average a prey of more than 1,500,000 francs
   (£60,000) a year. From 1500 to 1545, if we add to the treasure
   produced from the mines the amount of plunder found in the
   capital of the Montezumas, Ténochtitlan (now the city of
   Mexico), as well as in the temples and palaces of the kingdom
   of the Incas, the gold and silver drawn from America did not
   exceed an average of sixteen million francs (£640,000) a year.
   From 1545, the scene changes. In one of the gloomiest deserts
   on the face of the globe, in the midst of the rugged and
   inhospitable mountain scenery of Upper Peru, chance revealed
   to a poor Indian, who was guarding a flock of llamas, a mine
   of silver of incomparable richness. A crowd of miners was
   instantly attracted by the report of the rich deposits of ore
   spread over the sides of this mountain of Potocchi—a name
   which for euphony the European nations have since changed to
   Potosi. The exportation of the precious metals from America to
   Europe now rose rapidly to an amount which equalled, weight
   for weight, sixty millions of francs (£2,400,000) of our day,
   and it afterwards rose even to upwards of eighty millions. At
   that time such a mass of gold and silver represented a far
   greater amount of riches than at present. Under the influence
   of so extraordinary a supply, the value of these precious
   metals declined in Europe, in comparison with every other
   production of human industry, just as would be the case with
   iron or lead, if mines were discovered which yielded those
   metals in superabundance, as compared with their present
   consumption, and at a much less cost of labour than
   previously, just in fact as occurs in the case of manufactures
   of every kind, whenever, by improved processes, or from
   natural causes of a novel kind, they can be produced in
   unusual quantities, and at a great reduction of cost. This
   fall in the value of gold and silver, in comparison with all
   other productions, revealed itself by the increased quantity
   of coined metal which it was necessary to give in exchange for
   the generality of other articles. And it was thus that the
   working of the mines of America had necessarily for effect a
   general rise of prices, in other words, it made all other
   commodities dearer. The fall in the value of the precious
   metals, or that which means the same thing, the general rise
   of prices, does not appear to have been very great, out of
   Spain, till after the middle of the 16th century. Shortly
   after the commencement of the 17th century, the effects of the
   productiveness of the new mines and of the diminished cost of
   working them were realised in all parts of Europe. For the
   silver, which had been extracted in greater proportion than
   the gold, and on more favourable terms, the fall in value had
   been in the proportion of 1 to 3. In transactions where
   previously one pound of silver, or a coin containing a given
   quantity of this metal, had sufficed, henceforth three were
   required. … After having been arrested for awhile in this
   downward course, and even after having witnessed for a time a
   tendency to an upward movement, the fall in the value of the
   precious metals, and the corresponding rise in prices, resumed
   their course, under the influence of the same causes, until
   towards the end of the 18th century, without however
   manifesting their influence so widely or intensely as had been
   witnessed after the first development of the great American
   mines. We find, as the result, that during the first half of
   the 19th century, the value of silver fell to about the sixth
   of what it was before the discovery of America, when compared
   with the price of corn."

      _M. Chevalier,
      On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold
      (translated by Cobden),
      section 1, chapter 1._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   The Bank of Amsterdam.

   "In 1609, the great Bank of Amsterdam was founded, and its
   foundation not only testifies to the wealth of the republic,
   but marks an epoch in the commercial history of Northern
   Europe. Long before this period, banks had been established in
   the Italian cities, but, until late in the history of the Bank
   of England, which was not founded until nearly a century
   later, nothing was known on such a scale as this. It was
   established to meet the inconvenience arising from the
   circulation of currency from all quarters of the globe, and to
   accommodate merchants in their dealings. Anyone making a
   deposit of gold or silver received notes for the amount, less
   a small commission, and these notes commanded a premium in all
   countries. Before the end of the century its deposits of this
   character amounted to one hundred and eighty million dollars,
   an amount of treasure which bewildered financiers in every
   other part of Europe."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      volume 2, pages 323-324._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   Indian Money used in the American Colonies.

   Sea shells, strung or embroidered on belts and garments,
   formed the "wampum" which was the money of the North American
   Indians (see WAMPUM). "Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
   the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
   for use and exchange. This tribe was one of the most powerful,
   and it is asserted that their commercial use of wampum gave
   them their best opportunities of wealth. The Long Island
   Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then
   were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the
   fiercer tribes of the interior.
{2209}
   Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried
   a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire
   for them. The holder of wampum always compelled trade to come
   to him. After the use of wampum was established in colonial
   life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver,
   or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a
   legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a
   century the wampum was current in small transactions. For more
   than a century, indeed; this currency entered into the
   intercourse of Indian and colonist. … Labor is a chief
   factor in civilized society and the labor of the Indian was
   made available through wampum. As Winthrop shows, 10,000
   beaver skins annually came to the Dutch from the Great Lake.
   The chase was the primitive form of Indian industry and furs
   were the most conspicuous feature of foreign trade, as gold is
   to-day, but wampum played a much larger part in the vital
   trade of the time. Wampum, or the things it represented,
   carried deer meat and Indian corn to the New England men. Corn
   and pork went for fish; fish went for West India rum,
   molasses, and the silver which Europe coveted. West India
   products, or the direct exchange of fish with the Catholic
   countries of Europe, brought back the goods needed to
   replenish and extend colonial industries and trade. … As
   long as the natives were active and furs were plenty, there
   appears to have been no difficulty in passing any quantity of
   wampum in common with other currencies. The Bay annulled its
   statutes, making the beads a legal tender in 1661. Rhode
   Island and Connecticut followed this example soon after. …
   New York continued the beads in circulation longer than the
   regular use prevailed in New England. In 1693 they were
   recognized in the definite rates of the Brooklyn ferry. They
   continued to be circulated in the more remote districts of New
   England through the century, and even into the beginning of
   the eighteenth."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization,
      pages 5-30._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.
   Colonial Coinage in America.

   "The earliest coinage for America is said to have been
   executed in 1612, when the Virginia Company was endeavoring to
   establish a Colony on the Summer Islands (the Bermudas). This
   coin was of the denomination of a shilling, and was struck in
   brass." The "pine-tree" money of Massachusetts" was instituted
   by the Colonial Assembly in 1652, after the fall of Charles I.
   … This coinage was not discontinued until 1686; yet they
   appear to have continued the use of the same date, the
   shillings, sixpences, and threepences all bearing the date
   1652, while the twopenny pieces are all dated 1662. … After
   the suppression of their mint, the Colony of Massachusetts
   issued no more coins until after the establishment of the
   Confederacy. … The silver coins of Lord Baltimore, Lord
   Proprietor of Maryland, were the shilling, sixpence, and
   fourpence, or groat."

      _J. R. Snowden,
      Description of Ancient and Modern Coins,
      pages 85-87._

      See PINE TREE MONEY.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
   Banking in Great Britain.
   Origin and influence of the Bank of England.

   "In the reign of William old men were still living who could
   remember the days when there was not a single banking house in
   the city of London. So late as the time of the Restoration
   every trader had his own strong box in his own house, and,
   when an acceptance was presented to him, told down the crowns
   and Caroluses on his own counter. But the increase of wealth
   had produced its natural effect, the subdivision of labour.
   Before the end of the reign of Charles II. a new mode of
   paying and receiving money had come into fashion among the
   merchants of the capital. A class of agents arose, whose
   office was to keep the cash of the commercial houses. This new
   branch of business naturally fell into the hands of the
   goldsmiths, who were accustomed to traffic largely in the
   precious metals, and who had vaults in which great masses of
   bullion could lie secure from fire and from robbers. It was at
   the shops of the goldsmiths of Lombard Street that all the
   payments in coin were made. Other traders gave and received
   nothing but paper. This great change did not take place
   without much opposition and clamour. … No sooner had banking
   become a separate and important trade, than men began to
   discuss with earnestness the question whether it would be
   expedient to erect a national bank. … Two public banks had
   long been renowned throughout Europe, the Bank of Saint George
   at Genoa, and the Bank of Amsterdam. … Why should not the
   Bank of London be as great and as durable as the Banks of
   Genoa and Amsterdam? Before the end of the reign of Charles
   II. several plans were proposed, examined, attacked and
   defended. Some pamphleteers maintained that a national bank
   ought to be under the direction of the King. Others thought
   that the management ought to be entrusted to the Lord Mayor,
   Alderman and Common Council of the capital. After the
   Revolution the subject was discussed with an animation before
   unknown. … A crowd of plans, some of which resemble the
   fancies of a child or the dreams of a man in a fever, were
   pressed on the government. Pre-eminently conspicuous among the
   political mountebanks, whose busy faces were seen every day in
   the lobby of the House of Commons, were John Briscoe and Hugh
   Chamberlayne, two projectors worthy to have been members of
   that Academy which Gulliver found at Lagado. These men
   affirmed that the one cure for every distemper of the State
   was a Land Bank. A Land Bank would work for England miracles
   such as had never been wrought for Israel. … These blessed
   effects the Land Bank was to produce simply by issuing
   enormous quantities of notes on landed security. The doctrine
   of the projectors was that every person who had real property
   ought to have, besides that property, paper money to the full
   value of that property. Thus, if his estate was worth two
   thousand pounds, he ought to have his estate and two thousand
   pounds in paper money. Both Briscoe and Chamberlayne
   treated with the greatest contempt the notion that there could
   be an over-issue of paper as long as there was, for every ten
   pound note, a piece of land in the country worth ten pounds.
   … All the projectors of this busy time, however, were not so
   absurd as Chamberlayne. One among them, William Paterson, was
   an ingenious, though not always a judicious speculator. Of his
   early life little is known except that he was a native of
   Scotland, and that he had been in the West Indies. … This
   man submitted to the government, in 1691, a plan of a national
   bank; and his plan was favourably received both by statesmen
   and by merchants.
{2210}
   But years passed away; and nothing was done, till, in the
   spring of 1694, it became absolutely necessary to find some
   new mode of defraying the charges of the war. Then at length
   the scheme devised by the poor and obscure Scottish adventurer
   was taken up in earnest by Montague [Charles Montague, then
   one of the lords of the treasury and subsequently Chancellor
   of the Exchequer]. With Montague was closely allied Michael
   Godfrey. … Michael was one of the ablest, most upright and
   most opulent of the merchant princes of London. … By these
   two distinguished men Paterson's scheme was fathered. Montague
   undertook to manage the House of Commons, Godfrey to manage
   the City. An approving vote was obtained from the Committee of
   Ways and Means; and a bill, the title of which gave occasion
   to many sarcasms, was laid on the table. It was indeed not
   easy to guess that a bill, which purported only to impose a
   new duty on tonnage for the benefit of such persons as should
   advance money towards carrying on the war, was really a bill
   creating the greatest commercial institution that the world
   had ever seen. The plan was that £1,200,000 should be borrowed
   by the government on what was then considered as the moderate
   interest of eight per cent. In order to induce capitalists to
   advance the money promptly on terms so favourable to the
   public, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of
   the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The
   corporation was to have no exclusive privilege, and was to be
   restricted from trading in any thing but bills of exchange,
   bullion and forfeited pledges. As soon as the plan became
   generally known, a paper war broke out. … All the goldsmiths
   and pawnbrokers set up a howl of rage. Some discontented
   Tories predicted ruin to the monarchy. … Some discontented
   Whigs, on the other hand, predicted ruin to our liberties. …
   The power of the purse, the one great security for all the
   rights of Englishmen, will be transferred from the House of
   Commons to the Governor and Directors of the new Company. This
   last consideration was really of some weight, and was allowed
   to be so by the authors of the bill. A clause was therefore
   most properly inserted which inhibited the Bank from advancing
   money to the Crown without authority from Parliament. Every
   infraction of this salutary rule was to be punished by
   forfeiture of three times the sum advanced; and it was
   provided that the King should not have power to remit any part
   of the penalty. The plan, thus amended, received the sanction
   of the Commons more easily than might have been expected from
   the violence of the adverse clamour. In truth, the Parliament
   was under duress. Money must be had, and could in no other way
   be had so easily. … The bill, however, was not safe when it
   had reached the Upper House," but it was passed, and received
   the royal assent. "In the City the success of Montague's plan
   was complete. It was then at least as difficult to raise a
   million at eight per cent. as it would now be to raise forty
   millions at four per cent. It had been supposed that
   contributions would drop in very slowly: and a considerable
   time had therefore been allowed by the Act. This indulgence
   was not needed. So popular was the new investment that on the
   day on which the books were opened £300,000 were subscribed;
   300,000 more were subscribed during the next 48 hours; and, in
   ten days, to the delight of all the friends of the government,
   it was announced that the list was full. The whole sum which
   the Corporation was bound to lend to the State was paid into
   the Exchequer before the first instalment was due. Somers
   gladly put the Great Seal to a charter framed in conformity
   with the terms prescribed by Parliament; and the Bank of
   England commenced its operations in the house of the Company
   of Grocers. … It soon appeared that Montague had, by
   skilfully availing himself of the financial difficulties of
   the country, rendered an inestimable service to his party.
   During several generations the Bank of England was
   emphatically a Whig body. It was Whig, not accidentally, but
   necessarily. It must have instantly stopped payment if it had
   ceased to receive the interest on the sum which it had
   advanced to the government; and of that, interest James would
   not have paid one farthing."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 20._

   "For a long time the Bank of England was the focus of London
   Liberalism, and in that capacity rendered to the State
   inestimable services. In return for these substantial benefits
   the Bank of England received from the Government, either at
   first or afterwards, three most important privileges. First.
   The Bank of England had the exclusive possession of the
   Government balances. In its first period … the Bank gave
   credit to the Government, but afterwards it derived credit
   from the Government. There is a natural tendency in men to
   follow the example of the Government under which they live.
   The Government is the largest, most important, and most
   conspicuous entity with which the mass of any people are
   acquainted; its range of knowledge must always lie infinitely
   greater than the average of their knowledge, and therefore,
   unless there is a conspicuous warning to the contrary, most
   men are inclined to think their Government right, and, when
   they can, to do what it does. Especially in money matters a
   man might fairly reason—'If the Government is right in
   trusting the Bank of England with the great balance of the
   nation, I cannot be wrong in trusting it with my little
   balance.' Second, The Bank of England had, till lately, the
   monopoly of limited liability in England. The common law of
   England knows nothing of any such principle. It is only
   possible by Royal Charter or Statute Law. And by neither of
   these was any real bank … permitted with limited liability
   in England till within these few years. … Thirdly. The Bank
   of England had the privilege of being the sole joint stock
   company permitted to issue bank notes in England. Private
   London bankers did indeed issue notes down to the middle of
   the last century, but no joint stock company could do so. The
   explanatory clause of the Act of 1742 sounds most curiously to
   our modern ears. … 'It is the true intent and meaning of the
   said Act that no other bank shall be created, established, or
   allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any
   body politic or corporate whatsoever created or to be created,
   or for any other persons whatsoever united or to be united in
   covenants or partnership exceeding the number of six persons
   in that part of Great Britain called England, to borrow, owe,
   or take up any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes
   payable on demand or at any less time than six months from the
   borrowing thereof during the continuance of such said
   privilege to the said governor and company, who are hereby
   declared to be and remain a corporation with the privilege of
   exclusive banking, as before recited.'
{2211}
   To our modern ears these words seem to mean more than they
   did. The term banking was then applied only to the issue of
   notes and the taking up of money on bills on demand. Our
   present system of deposit banking, in which no bills or
   promissory notes are issued, was not then known on a great
   scale, and was not called banking. But its effect was very
   important. It in time gave the Bank of England the monopoly of
   the note issue of the Metropolis. It had at that time no
   branches, and so it did not compete for the country
   circulation. But in the Metropolis, where it did compete, it
   was completely victorious. No company but the Bank of England
   could issue notes, and unincorporated individuals gradually
   gave way, and ceased to do so. Up to 1844 London private
   bankers might have issued notes if they pleased, but almost a
   hundred years ago they were forced out of the field. The Bank
   of England had so long had a practical monopoly of the
   circulation, that it is commonly believed always to have had a
   legal monopoly. And the practical effect of the clause went
   further: it was believed to make the Bank of England the only
   joint stock company that could receive deposits, as well as
   the only company that could issue notes. The gift of
   'exclusive banking' to the Bank of England was read in its
   most natural modern sense: it was thought to prohibit any
   other banking company from carrying on our present system of
   banking. After joint stock banking was permitted in the
   country, people began to inquire why it should not exist in
   the Metropolis too? And then it was seen that the words I have
   quoted only forbid the issue of negotiable instruments, and
   not the receiving of money when no such instrument is given.
   Upon this construction, the London and Westminster Bank and
   all our older joint stock banks were founded. But till they
   began, the Bank of England had among companies not only the
   exclusive privilege of note issue, but that of deposit banking
   too. It was in every sense the only banking company in London.
   With so many advantages over all competitors, it is quite
   natural that the Bank of England should have far outstripped
   them all. … All the other bankers grouped themselves round
   it, and lodged their reserve with it. Thus our one-reserve
   system of banking was not deliberately founded upon definite
   reasons; it was the gradual consequence of many singular
   events, and of an accumulation of legal privileges on a single
   bank which has now been altered, and which no one would now
   defend. … For more than a century after its creation
   (notwithstanding occasional errors) the Bank of England, in
   the main, acted with judgment and with caution. Its business
   was but small as we should now reckon, but for the most part
   it conducted that business with prudence and discretion. In
   1696, it had been involved in the most serious difficulties,
   and had been obliged to refuse to pay some of its notes. For a
   long period it was in wholesome dread of public opinion, and
   the necessity of retaining public confidence made it cautious.
   But the English Government removed that necessity. In 1797,
   Mr. Pitt feared that he might not be able to obtain sufficient
   specie for foreign payments, in consequence of the low state
   of the Bank reserve, and he therefore required the Bank not to
   pay in cash. He removed the preservative apprehension which is
   the best security of all Banks. For this reason the period
   under which the Bank of England did not pay gold for its
   notes—the period from 1797 to 1819—is always called the
   period of the Bank 'restriction.' As the Bank during that
   period did not perform, and was not compelled by law to
   perform, its contract of paying its notes in cash, it might
   apparently have been well called the period of Bank license.
   But the word 'restriction' was quite right, and was the only
   proper word as a description of the policy of 1797. Mr. Pitt
   did not say that the Bank of England need not pay its notes in
   specie; he 'restricted' them from doing so; he said that they
   must not. In consequence, from 1797 to 1844 (when a new era
   begins), there never was a proper caution on the part of the
   Bank directors. At heart they considered that the Bank of
   England had a kind of charmed life, and that it was above the
   ordinary banking anxiety to pay its way. And this feeling was
   very natural."

      _W. Bagehot,
      Lombard Street,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Gilbart,
      History and Principles of Banking._

      _H. May,
      The Bank of England
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1885)._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.
   Early Paper issues and Banks in the American Colonies.

   "Previous to the Revolutionary War paper money was issued to a
   greater or less extent by each one of the thirteen colonies.
   The first issue was by Massachusetts in 1690, to aid in
   fitting out the expedition against Canada. Similar issues had
   been made by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
   York, and New Jersey, previous to the year 1711. South
   Carolina began to emit bills in 1712, Pennsylvania in 1723,
   Maryland in 1734, Delaware in 1739, Virginia in 1755, and
   Georgia in 1760. Originally the issues were authorized to meet
   the necessities of the colonial treasuries. In Massachusetts,
   in 1715, as a remedy for the prevailing embarrassment of
   trade, a land bank was proposed with the right to issue
   circulating notes secured by land. … The plan for the land
   bank was defeated, but the issue of paper money by the
   treasury was authorized to the extent of £50,000, to be loaned
   on good mortgages in sums of not more than £500, nor less than
   £50, to one person. The rate of interest was five per cent.,
   payable with one-fifth of the principal annually. … In 1733
   an issue of bills to the amount of £110,000 was made by the
   merchants of Boston, which were to be redeemed at the end of
   ten years, in silver, at the rate of 19 shillings per ounce.
   In 1739, the commercial and financial embarrassment still
   continuing, another land bank was started in Massachusetts.
   … A specie bank was also formed in 1739, by Edward
   Hutchinson and others, which issued bills to the amount of
   £120,000, redeemable in fifteen years in silver, at 20
   shillings per ounce, or gold pro rata. The payment of these
   notes was guaranteed by wealthy and responsible merchants.
   These notes, and those of a similar issue in 1733, were
   largely hoarded and did not pass generally into circulation.
   In 1740 Parliament passed a bill to extend the act of 1720,
   known as the bubble act, to the American colonies, with the
   intention of breaking up all companies formed for the purpose
   of issuing paper money.
{2212}
   Under this act both the land bank and the specie bank were
   forced to liquidate their affairs, though not without some
   resistance on the part of the former. … The paper money of
   the colonies, whether issued by them or by the loan banks,
   depreciated almost without exception as the amounts in
   circulation increased. … The emission of bills by the
   colonies and the banks was not regarded with favor by the
   mother country, and the provincial governors were as a general
   thing opposed to these issues. They were consequently
   frequently embroiled with their legislatures."

      _J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      pages 1-5._

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-19th Centuries.
   Creation of the principal European Banks.

   "The Bank of Vienna was founded as a bank of deposit in 1703,
   and as a bank of issue in 1793; the Banks of Berlin and
   Breslau in 1765 with state sanction; the Austrian National
   Bank in 1816. In St. Petersburg three banks were set up; the
   Loan Bank in 1772, advancing loans on deposits of bullion and
   jewels; the Assignation Bank in 1768 (and in Moscow, 1770),
   issuing government paper money; the Aid Bank in 1797, to
   relieve estates from mortgage and advance money for
   improvements. The Commercial Bank of Russia was founded in
   1818. The Bank of Stockholm was founded in 1688. The Bank of
   France was founded first in 1803 and reorganised in 1806, when
   its capital was raised to 90,000,000 francs, held in 90,000
   shares of 1,000 francs. It is the only authorised source of
   paper money in France, and is intimately associated with the
   government."

      _H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 3, chapter 4._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1775-1780.
   The Continental Currency of the American Revolution.

   "The colonies … went into the Revolutionary War, many of
   them with paper already in circulation, all of them making
   issues for the expenses of military preparations. The
   Continental Congress, having no power to tax, and its members
   being accustomed to paper issues as the ordinary form of
   public finance, began to issue bills on the faith of the
   'Continent,' Franklin earnestly approving. The first issue was
   for 300,000 Spanish dollars, redeemable in gold or silver, in
   three years, ordered in May and issued in August, 1775. Paper
   for nine million dollars was issued before any depreciation
   began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected
   it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah
   Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a
   member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the
   people when they could go to the printing-office and get a
   cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,
   Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.
   Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who
   'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for
   speculators who bought up for a rise."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 43-44._

   "During the summer of 1780 this wretched 'Continental'
   currency fell into contempt. As Washington said, it took a
   wagon-load of money to buy a wagon-load of provisions. At the
   end of the year 1778, the paper dollar was worth sixteen cents
   in the northern states and twelve cents in the south. Early in
   1780 its value had fallen to two cents, and before the end of
   the year it took ten paper dollars to make a cent. In October,
   Indian corn sold wholesale in Boston for $150 a bushel, butter
   was $12 a pound, tea $90, sugar $10, beef $8, coffee $12, and
   a barrel of flour cost $1,575. Samuel Adams paid $2,000 for a
   hat and suit of clothes. The money soon ceased to circulate,
   debts could not be collected, and there was a general
   prostration of credit. To say that a thing was 'worth a
   Continental' became the strongest possible expression of
   contempt."

      _J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

   Before the close of the year 1780, the Continental Currency
   had ceased to circulate. Attempts were subsequently made to
   have it funded or redeemed, but without success.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Phillips, Jr.,
      Historical Sketches of American Paper Currency,
      2d Series._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.
   The Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

   "The Pennsylvania Bank, which was organized in Philadelphia
   during the Revolutionary War, was founded for the purpose of
   facilitating the operations of the Government in transporting
   supplies for the army. It began its useful work in 1780, and
   continued in existence until after the close of the war;
   finally closing its affairs toward the end of the year 1784.
   But the need was felt of a national bank which should not only
   aid the Government on a large scale by its money and credit,
   but should extend facilities to individuals, and thereby
   benefit the community as well as the state. Through the
   influence and exertion of Robert Morris, then Superintendent
   of Finance for the United States, the Bank of North America,
   at Philadelphia, was organized with a capital of $400,000. It
   was incorporated by Congress in December, 1781, and by the
   State of Pennsylvania a few months afterward. Its success was
   immediate and complete. It not only rendered valuable and
   timely aid to the United States Government and to the State of
   Pennsylvania, but it greatly assisted in restoring confidence
   and credit to the commercial community, and afforded
   facilities to private enterprise that were especially welcome.
   … The success of the Bank of North America, and the
   advantages which the citizens of Philadelphia enjoyed from the
   facilities it offered them, naturally suggested the founding
   of a similar enterprise in the city of New York." The Bank of
   New York was accordingly founded in 1784.

      _H. W. Domett,
      History of the Bank of New York,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of
      the American Revolution,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796.
   The Assignats of the French Revolution.

   "The financial embarrassments of the government in 1789 were
   extreme. Many taxes had ceased to be productive; the
   confiscated estates not only yielded no revenue but caused a
   large expense, and, as a measure of resource, the finance
   committee of the Assembly reported in favor of issues based
   upon the confiscated lands. But the bitter experience of
   France through the Mississippi schemes of John Law, 1719-21,
   made the Assembly and the nation hesitate. … Necker, the
   Minister, stood firm in his opposition to the issue of paper
   money, even as a measure of resource; but the steady pressure
   of fiscal exigencies, together with the influence of the
   fervid orators of the Assembly, gained a continually
   increasing support to the proposition of the committee. …
{2213}
   The leaders of the Assembly were secretly actuated by a
   political purpose, viz., by widely distributing the titles to
   the confiscated lands (for such the paper money in effect was)
   to commit the thrifty middle class of France to the principles
   and measures of the revolution. … Oratory, the force of
   fiscal necessities, the half-confessed political design,
   prevailed at last over the warnings of experience; and a
   decree passed the Assembly authorizing an issue of notes to
   the value of four hundred million francs, on the security of
   the public lands. To emphasize this security the title of
   'assignats' was applied to the paper. … The issue was made;
   the assignats went into circulation; and soon came the
   inevitable demand for more. … The decree for a further issue
   of eight hundred millions passed, September, 1790. Though the
   opponents of the issue had lost heart and voice, they still
   polled 423 votes against 508. To conciliate a minority still
   so large, contraction was provided for by requiring that the
   paper when paid into the Treasury should be burned, and the
   decree contained a solemn declaration that in no case should
   the amount exceed twelve hundred millions. June 19, 1791, the
   Assembly, against feeble resistance, violated this pledge and
   authorized a further issue of six hundred millions. Under the
   operation of Gresham's Law, specie now began to disappear from
   circulation. … And now came the collapse of French industry.
   … 'Everything that tariffs and custom-houses could do was
   done. Still the great manufactories of Normandy were closed;
   those of the rest of the kingdom speedily followed, and vast
   numbers of workmen, in all parts of the country, were thrown
   out of employment. … In the spring of 1791 no one knew
   whether a piece of paper money, representing 100 francs,
   would, a month later, have a purchasing power of 100 francs,
   or 90 francs, or 80, or 60. The result was that capitalists
   declined to embark their means in business. Enterprise
   received a mortal blow. Demand for labor was still further
   diminished. The business of France dwindled into a mere living
   from hand to mouth.' … Towards the end of 1794 there had
   been issued 7,000 millions in assignats; by May, 1795, 10,000
   millions; by the end of July, 16,000 millions; by the
   beginning of 1796, 45,000 millions, of which 36,000 millions
   were in actual circulation. M. Bresson gives the following
   table of depreciation: 24 livres in coin were worth in
   assignats
   April 1, 1795,  238;
   May 1,          299;
   June 1,         439;
   July 1,         808;
   Aug. 1,         807;
   Sept. 1,      1,101;
   Oct. 1,       1,205;
   Nov. 1,       2,588;
   Dec. 1,       3,575;
   Jan. 1, 1796, 4,658;
   Feb. 1,       5,337.

   At the last 'an assignat professing to be worth 100 francs was
   commonly exchanged for 5 sous 6 deniers: in other words, a
   paper note professing to be worth £4 sterling passed current
   for less than 3d. in money.' The downward course of the
   assignats had unquestionably been accelerated by the extensive
   counterfeiting of the paper in Belgium, Switzerland, and
   England. … Now appears that last resort of finance under a
   depreciating paper: an issue under new names and new devices.
   … Territorial Mandates were ordered to be issued for
   assignats at 30:1, the mandates to be directly exchangeable
   for land, at the will of the holder, on demand. … For a
   brief time after the first limited emission, the mandates rose
   as high as 80 per cent. of their nominal value; but soon
   additional issues sent them down even more rapidly than the
   assignats had fallen."

      _F. A. Walker,
      Money,
      part 2, chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _Andrew D. White,
      Paper-money Inflation in France._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.
   The First Bank of the United States.

   On the organization of the government of the United States,
   under its federal constitution, in 1789 and 1790, the lead in
   constructive statesmanship was taken, as is well known, by
   Alexander Hamilton. His plan "included a financial institution
   to develop the national resources, strengthen the public
   credit, aid the Treasury Department in its administration, and
   provide a secure and sound circulating medium for the people.
   On December 13, 1790, he sent into Congress a report on the
   subject of a national bank. The Republican party, then in the
   minority, opposed the plan as unconstitutional, on the ground
   that the power of creating banks or any corporate body had not
   been expressly delegated to Congress, and was therefore not
   possessed by it. Washington's cabinet was divided; Jefferson
   opposing the measure as not within the implied powers, because
   it was an expediency and not a paramount necessity. Later he
   used stronger language, and denounced the institution as 'one
   of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles
   and form of our Constitution,' nor did he ever abandon these
   views. There is the authority of Mr. Gallatin for saying that
   Jefferson 'died a decided enemy to our banking system
   generally, and specially to a bank of the United States.' But
   Hamilton's views prevailed. Washington, who in the weary years
   of war had seen the imperative necessity of some national
   organization of the finances, after mature deliberation
   approved the plan, and on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the
   United States was incorporated. The capital stock was limited
   to twenty-five thousand shares of four hundred dollars each,
   or ten millions of dollars, payable one fourth in gold and
   silver, and three fourths in public securities bearing an
   interest of six and three per cent. The stock was immediately
   subscribed for, the government taking five thousand shares,
   two millions of dollars, under the right reserved in the
   charter. The subscription of the United States was paid in ten
   equal annual instalments. A large proportion of the stock was
   held abroad, and the shares soon rose above par. … Authority
   was given the bank to establish offices of discount and
   deposit within the United States. The chief bank was placed in
   Philadelphia and branches were established in eight cities,
   with capitals in proportion to their commercial importance. In
   1809 the stockholders of the Bank of the United States
   memorialized the government for a renewal of their charter,
   which would expire on March 4, 1811; and on March 9, 1809, Mr.
   Gallatin sent in a report in which he reviewed the operations
   of the bank from its organization. Of the government shares,
   five million dollars at par, two thousand four hundred and
   ninety-three shares were sold in 1796 and 1797 at an advance
   of 25 per cent., two hundred and eighty-seven in 1797 at an
   advance of twenty per cent., and the remaining 2,220 shares in
   1802, at an advance of 45 per cent., making together,
   exclusive of the dividends, a profit of $671,680 to the United
   States. Eighteen thousand shares of the bank stock were held
   abroad, and seven thousand shares, or a little more than one
   fourth part of the capital, in the United States.
{2214}
   A table of all the dividends made by the bank showed that they
   had on the average been at the rate of 8 3/8 (precisely 8
   13/34) per cent. a year, which proved that the bank had not in
   any considerable degree used the public deposits for the
   purpose of extending its discounts. From a general view of the
   debits and credits, as presented, it appeared that the affairs
   of the Bank of the United States, considered as a moneyed
   institution, had been wisely and skilfully managed. The
   advantages derived by the government Mr. Gallatin stated to
   be,
   1, safe-keeping of the public moneys;
   2, transmission of the public moneys;
   3, collection of the revenue;
   4, loans.
   The strongest objection to the renewal of the charter lay in
   the great portion of the bank stock held by foreigners. Not on
   account of any influence over the institution, since they had
   no vote; but because of the high rate of interest payable by
   America to foreign countries. … Congress refused to prolong
   its existence and the institution was dissolved. Fortunately
   for the country, it wound up its affairs with such
   deliberation and prudence as to allow of the interposition of
   other bank credits in lieu of those withdrawn, and thus
   prevented a serious shock to the interests of the community.
   In the twenty years of its existence from 1791 to 1811 its
   management was irreproachable. The immediate effect of the
   refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank of the United States
   was to bring the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy. The
   interference of Parish, Girard, and Astor alone saved the
   credit of the government. … Another immediate effect of the
   dissolution of the bank was the withdrawal from the country of
   the foreign capital invested in the bank, more than seven
   millions of dollars. This amount was remitted, in the twelve
   months preceding the war, in specie. Specie was at that time a
   product foreign to the United States, and by no means easy to
   obtain. … The notes of the Bank of the United States,
   payable on demand in gold and silver at the counters of the
   bank, or any of its branches, were, by its charter, receivable
   in all payments to the United States; but this quality was
   also stripped from them on March 19, 1812, by a repeal of the
   act according it. To these disturbances of the financial
   equilibrium of the country was added the necessary withdrawal
   of fifteen millions of bank credit and its transfer to other
   institutions. This gave an extraordinary impulse to the
   establishment of local banks, each eager for a share of the
   profits. The capital of the country, instead of being
   concentrated, was dissipated. Between January 1, 1811, and
   1815, one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered, and
   forty millions of dollars were added to the banking capital.
   To realize profits, the issues of paper were pushed to the
   extreme of possible circulation. Meanwhile New England kept
   aloof from the nation. The specie in the vaults of the banks
   of Massachusetts rose from $1,706,000 on June 1, 1811, to
   $7,326,000 on June 1, 1814. … The suspension of the banks
   was precipitated by the capture of Washington. It began in
   Baltimore, which was threatened by the British, and was at
   once followed in Philadelphia and New York. Before the end of
   September all the banks south and west of New England had
   suspended specie payment. … The depression of the local
   currencies ranged from seven to twenty-five per cent. … In
   November the Treasury Department found itself involved in the
   common disaster. The refusal of the banks, in which the public
   moneys were deposited, to pay their notes or the drafts upon
   them in specie deprived the government of its gold and silver;
   and their refusal, likewise, of credit and circulation to the
   issues of banks in other States deprived the government also
   of the only means it possessed for transferring its funds to
   pay the dividends on the debt and discharge the treasury
   notes. … On October 14, 1814, Alexander J. Dallas, Mr.
   Gallatin's old friend, who had been appointed Secretary of the
   Treasury on the 6th of the same month, in a report of a plan
   to support the public credit, proposed the incorporation of a
   national bank. A bill was passed by Congress, but returned to
   it by Madison with his veto on January 15, 1815. … Mr.
   Dallas again, as a last resort, insisted on a bank as the only
   means by which the currency of the country could be restored
   to a sound condition. In December, 1815, Dallas reported to
   the Committee of the House of Representatives on the national
   currency, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, a plan for a
   national bank, and on March 3, 1816, the second Bank of the
   United States was chartered by Congress. The capital was
   thirty-five millions, of which the government held seven
   millions in seventy thousand shares of one hundred dollars
   each. Mr. Madison approved the bill. … The second national
   bank of the United States was located at Philadelphia, and
   chartered for twenty years."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      Albert Gallatin,
      chapter 6._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.
   The Second Bank of the United States
   and the war upon it.

   "On the 1st of January, 1817, the bank opened for business,
   with the country on the brink of a great monetary crisis, but
   'too late to prevent the crash which followed.' The management
   of the bank during the first two years of its existence was
   far from satisfactory. It aggravated the troubles of the
   financial situation instead of relieving them. Specie payments
   were nominally resumed in 1817, but the insidious canker of
   inflation had eaten its way into the arteries of business, and
   in the crisis of 1819 came another suspension that lasted for
   two years. … It was only by a desperate effort that the bank
   finally weathered the storm brought on by its own
   mismanagement and that of the State Banks. After the recovery,
   a period of several years of prosperity followed, and the
   management of the bank was thoroughly reorganized and sound.
   From this time on until the great 'Bank War' its affairs seem
   to have been conducted with a view to performing its duty to
   the government as well as to its individual stockholders, and
   it rendered such aid to the public, directly, and indirectly,
   as entitled it to respect and fair treatment on the part of
   the servants of the people. … But the bank controversy was
   not yet over. It was about to be revived, and to become a
   prominent issue in a period of our national politics more
   distinguished for the bitterness of its personal animosities
   than perhaps any other in our annals. … As already said, the
   ten years following the revulsion of 1819-25 were years of
   almost unbroken prosperity. … The question of the
   continuance of the bank was not under discussion. In fact,
   scarcely any mention of the subject was made until President
   Jackson referred to it in his message of December, 1829.
{2215}
   In this message he reopened the question of the
   constitutionality of the bank, but the committee to which this
   portion of the message was referred in the House of
   Representatives made a report favorable to the institution.
   There seems no reason to doubt the honesty of Jackson's
   opinion that the bank was unconstitutional, and at first he
   probably had no feeling in the matter except that which sprang
   from his convictions on this point. Certain events, however,
   increased his hostility to the bank, and strengthened his
   resolution to destroy it. … When President Jackson first
   attacked the bank, the weapon he chiefly relied on was the
   alleged unconstitutionality of the charter."

      _D. Kinley,
      The Independent Treasury of the United States,
      chapter 1._

   The question of the rechartering of the Bank was made an issue
   in the presidential campaign of 1832, by Henry Clay. "Its
   disinterested friends in both parties strongly dissuaded
   Biddle [president of the Bank] from allowing the question of
   recharter to be brought into the campaign. Clay's advisers
   tried to dissuade him. The bank, however, could not oppose the
   public man on whom it depended most, and the party leaders
   deferred at last to their chief. Jackson never was more
   dictatorial and obstinate than Clay was at this juncture."
   Pending the election, a bill to renew the charter of the Bank
   was passed through both houses of Congress. The President
   promptly vetoed it. "The national republican convention met at
   Baltimore, December 12, 1831. It … issued an address, in
   which the bank question was put forward. It was declared that
   the President 'is fully and three times over pledged to the
   people to negative any bill that may be passed for
   rechartering the bank, and there is little doubt that the
   additional influence which he would acquire by a reelection
   would be employed to carry through Congress the extraordinary
   substitute which he has repeatedly proposed.' The appeal,
   therefore, was to defeat Jackson in order to save the bank.
   … Such a challenge as that could have but one effect on
   Jackson. It called every faculty he possessed into activity to
   compass the destruction of the bank. Instead of retiring from
   the position he had taken, the moment there was a fight to be
   fought, he did what he did at New Orleans. He moved his lines
   up to the last point he could command on the side towards the
   enemy. … The proceedings seemed to prove just what the
   anti-bank men had asserted: that the bank was a great monster,
   which aimed to control elections, and to set up and put down
   Presidents. The campaign of 1832 was a struggle between the
   popularity of the bank and the popularity of Jackson."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson,
      chapter 11._

   Jackson was overwhelmingly elected, and feeling convinced that
   his war upon the Bank had received the approval of the people,
   he determined to remove the public deposits from its keeping
   on his own responsibility. "With this view he removed (in the
   spring of 1833) the Secretary of the Treasury, who would not
   consent to remove the deposits, and appointed William J.
   Duane, of Pennsylvania, in his place. He proved to be no more
   compliant than his predecessor. After many attempts to
   persuade him, the President announced to the Cabinet his final
   decision that the deposits must be removed. The Reasons given
   were that the law gave the Secretary, not Congress, control of
   the deposits, that it was improper to leave them longer in a
   bank whose charter would so soon expire, that the Bank's funds
   had been largely used for political purposes, that its
   inability to pay all its depositors had been shown by its
   efforts to procure an extension of time from its creditors in
   Europe, and that its four government directors had been
   systematically kept from knowledge of its management.
   Secretary Duane refused either to remove the deposits or to
   resign his office, and pronounced the proposed removal
   unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. He was
   at once removed from office, and Roger B. Taney, of Maryland,
   appointed in his place. The necessary Orders for Removal were
   given by Secretary Taney. It was not strictly a removal, for
   all previous deposits were left in the Bank, to be drawn upon
   until exhausted. It was rather a cessation. The deposits were
   afterwards made in various State banks, and the Bank of the
   United States was compelled to call in its loans. The
   commercial distress which followed in consequence probably
   strengthened the President in the end by giving a convincing
   proof of the Bank's power as an antagonist to the Government."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 13._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.
   The Wild Cat Banks of Michigan.

   "Michigan became a State in January, 1837. Almost the first
   act of her State legislature was the passage of a general
   banking law under which any ten or more freeholders of any
   county might organize themselves into a corporation for the
   transaction of banking business. Of the nominal capital of a
   bank only ten per cent. in specie was required to be paid when
   subscriptions to the stock were made, and twenty per cent.
   additional in specie when the bank began business. For the
   further security of the notes which were to be issued as
   currency, the stockholders were to give first mortgages upon
   real estate, to be estimated at its cash value by at least
   three county officers, the mortgages to be filed with the
   auditor-general of the State. A bank commissioner was
   appointed to superintend the organization of the banks, and to
   attest the legality of their proceedings to the
   auditor-general, who, upon receiving such attestation, was to
   deliver to the banks circulating notes amounting to two and a
   half times the capital certified to as having been paid in.
   This law was passed in obedience to a popular cry that the
   banking business had become an 'odious monopoly' that ought to
   be broken up. Its design was to 'introduce free competition
   into what was considered a profitable branch of business
   heretofore monopolized by a few favored corporations.' Anybody
   was to be given fair opportunities for entering the business
   on equal terms with everybody else. The act was passed in
   March, 1837, and the legislature adjourned till November 9
   following. Before the latter date arrived, in fact before any
   banks had been organized under the law, a financial panic
   seized the whole country. An era of wild speculation reached a
   climax, the banks in all the principal cities of the country
   suspended specie payments, and State legislatures were called
   together to devise remedies to meet the situation. That of
   Michigan was convened in special session in June, and its
   remedy for the case of Michigan was to leave the general
   banking law in force, and to add to it full authority for
   banks organized under it to begin the business of issuing
   bills in a state of suspension—that is, to flood the State
   with an irredeemable currency, based upon thirty per cent. of
   specie and seventy per cent. of land mortgage bonds."

      _Cheap-Money Experiments
      (from the Century Magazine),
      pages 75-77._

{2216}

   "Wild lands that had been recently bought of the government at
   one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre were now valued at
   ten or twenty times that amount, and lots in villages that
   still existed only on paper had a worth for banking purposes
   only limited by the conscience of the officer who was to take
   the securities. Any ten freeholders of a county must be poor
   indeed if they could not give sufficient security to answer
   the purpose of the general banking law. The requirement of the
   payment of thirty per cent. of the capital stock in specie was
   more difficult to be complied with. But as the payment was to
   be made to the bank itself, the difficulty was gotten over in
   various ingenious ways, which the author of the general
   banking law could hardly have anticipated. In some cases,
   stock notes in terms payable in specie, or the certificates of
   individuals which stated—untruly—that the maker held a
   specified sum of specie for the bank, were counted as specie
   itself; in others, a small sum of specie was paid in and taken
   out, and the process repeated over and over until the
   aggregate of payments equaled the sum required; in still
   others, the specie with which one bank was organized was
   passed from town to town and made to answer the purposes of
   several. By the first day of January, 1838, articles of
   association for twenty-one banks had been filed, making, with
   the banks before in existence, an average of one to less than
   five thousand people. Some of them were absolutely without
   capital, and some were organized by scheming men in New York
   and elsewhere, who took the bills away with them to circulate
   abroad, putting out none at home. For some, locations as
   inaccessible as possible were selected, that the bills might
   not come back to plague the managers. The bank commissioners
   say in their report for 1838, of their journey for inspection:
   'The singular spectacle was presented of the officers of the
   State seeking for banks in situations the most inaccessible
   and remote from trade, and finding at every step an increase
   of labor by the discovery of new and unknown organizations.
   Before they could be arrested the mischief was done: large
   issues were in circulation and no adequate remedy for the
   evil.' One bank was found housed in a saw-mill, and it was
   said with pardonable exaggeration in one of the public papers.
   'Every village plat with a house, or even without a house, if
   it had a hollow stump to serve as a vault, was the site of a
   bank.' … The governor, when he delivered his annual message
   in January, 1838, still had confidence in the general banking
   law, which he said 'offered to all persons the privilege of
   banking under certain guards and restrictions,' and he
   declared that 'the principles upon which this law is based are
   certainly correct, destroying as they do the odious feature of
   a banking monopoly, and giving equal rights to all classes of
   the community.' … The aggregate amount of private
   indebtedness had by this time become enormous, and the
   pressure for payment was serious and disquieting. … The
   people must have relief; and what relief could be so certain
   or so speedy as more banks and more money? More banks
   therefore continued to be organized, and the paper current
   flowed out among the people in increasing volume. … At the
   beginning of 1839 the bank commissioners estimated that there
   were a million dollars of bills of insolvent banks in the
   hands of individuals and unavailable. Yet the governor, in his
   annual message delivered in January, found it a 'source of
   unfeigned gratification to be able to congratulate [the
   legislature] on the prosperous condition to which our rising
   commonwealth has attained.' … Then came stay laws, and laws
   to compel creditors to take lands at a valuation. They were
   doubtful in point of utility, and more than doubtful in point
   of morality and constitutionality. The federal bankrupt act of
   1841 first brought substantial relief: it brought almost no
   dividends to creditors, but it relieved debtors from their
   crushing burdens and permitted them, sobered and in their
   right minds, to enter once more the fields of industry and
   activity. The extraordinary history of the attempt to break up
   an 'odious monopoly' in banking by making everybody a banker,
   and to create prosperity by unlimited issues of paper
   currency, was brought at length to a fit conclusion."

      _T. M. Cooley,
      Michigan,
      chapter 13._

      See WILD CAT BANKS.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.
   Free Banking Law of New York.

   "On April 18th, 1838, the monopoly of banking under special
   charters, was brought to a close in the State of New York, by
   the passage of the act 'to authorize the business of Banking.'
   Under this law Associations for Banking purposes and
   Individual Bankers, were authorized to carry on the business
   of Banking, by establishing offices of deposit, discount and
   circulation. Subsequently a separate Department was organized
   at Albany, called 'The Bank Department,' with a
   Superintendent, who was charged with the supervision of all
   the banks in the State. Under this law institutions could be
   organized simply as banks of 'discount and deposit,' and might
   also add the issuing of a paper currency to circulate as
   money. At first the law provided that State and United States
   stocks for one-half, and bonds and mortgages for the other
   half, might be deposited as security for the circulating notes
   to be issued by Banks and individual Bankers. Upon a fair
   trial, however, it was found that when a bank failed, and the
   Bank Department was called upon to redeem the circulating
   notes of such bank, the mortgages could not be made available
   in time to meet the demand. … By an amendment of the law the
   receiving of mortgages as security for circulating notes was
   discontinued."

      _E. G. Spaulding,
      One Hundred Years of Progress
      in the Business of Banking,
      page 48._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.
   The English Bank Charter Act.

   "By an act of parliament passed in 1838, conferring certain
   privileges on the Bank of England, it was provided that the
   charter granted to that body should expire in 1855, but the
   power was reserved to the legislature, on giving six months'
   notice, to revise the charter ten years earlier. Availing
   themselves of this option, the government proposed a measure
   for regulating the entire monetary system of the country."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

{2217}

   "The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment
   of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to
   issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law.
   Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion
   between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of
   bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this
   subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the
   last twenty years there had been four periods when a
   contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain
   the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the
   Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In
   the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of
   1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little
   more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation
   had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not
   the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones
   Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned
   with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised
   the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of
   paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These
   changes were three in number. The first was to separate
   totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the
   banking department and the issue department. The banking
   department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the
   directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The
   issue department was placed under regulations which deprived
   the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost
   be said to have made it a department of the State. The second
   innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of
   England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets.
   The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of
   £14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession.
   The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides
   which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over
   £14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards,
   to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its
   possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank
   would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be
   presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues
   of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to
   any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the
   Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed
   it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average
   quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during
   the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any
   of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to
   exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be
   entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to
   two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank
   which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required
   in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts
   passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English
   Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with
   such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those
   kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been
   the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by
   political economists and by men of business."

      _F. C. Montague,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Bonamy Price,
      The Bank Charter Act of 1844
      (Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865)._

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.
   Production of the Precious Metals
   in the last half-century.
   The Silver Question in the United States.

   "The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was
   £560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied
   considerably since the beginning of the century [from
   £3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things
   immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian
   discoveries took place, and these were followed by the
   discoveries in Australia in 1851.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849;
      and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

   For these three years the annual average production is set
   down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the
   production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and
   continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of
   £32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred,
   the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to
   £18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last
   ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about
   £20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000.
   The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this
   twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an
   amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date
   of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the
   world has been nearly doubled since that time."

      _J. E. Cairnes,
      Essays in Political Economy,
      pages 160-161._

      "The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five
      years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average
      product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The
      average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from
      1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per
      cent. The average annual product of silver for the same
      period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent.
      There is the whole silver question."

      _L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      page 21._

   "From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the
   United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were
   alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of
   debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,
   silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since
   1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of
   circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to
   1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and
   subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that
   prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins
   were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to
   the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the
   standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the
   exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the
   coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on
   February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,
   which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of
   President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver
   dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at
   the market price by the Government, and the amount so
   purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of
   dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge
   was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous
   act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver
   dollar, was passed surreptitiously.
{2218}
   This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the
   writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,
   transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times
   distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to
   discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various
   experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature
   of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of
   Congress."

      _J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      chapter 10._

   "The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill,
   directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less
   than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of
   silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said
   silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal
   value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver
   dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said
   certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all
   public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts,
   principally, of the greenback inflationists and the
   representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to
   1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these
   348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment
   is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In
   1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13,
   '82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached
   93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was
   22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was
   72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by
   the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a
   plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the
   House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision
   for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a
   conference committee which reported the bill that became a
   law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the
   treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of
   silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender
   treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold
   or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the
   established policy of the United States to maintain the two
   metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal
   ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price
   of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our
   dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

      _L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      pages 21-25._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

   In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the
   judgment of the best informed by the operation of the
   silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman
   Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a
   special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to
   Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said:
   "With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative
   production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe
   investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business
   enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung
   up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended
   because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet
   the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving
   corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the
   money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in
   legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities
   they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no
   longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
   conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch
   of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable
   to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage
   of silver by the General Government. This legislation is
   embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890,
   which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject
   involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
   struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and
   those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the
   act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed
   by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1,
   1893.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874.
   The Latin Union and the Silver Question.

   "The gold discoveries of California and Australia were
   directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the
   subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before
   the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the
   small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below
   the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the
   United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of
   distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small
   coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness
   of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …
   Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their
   coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which
   had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's
   coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear
   that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must
   drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained
   more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal
   value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass
   the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a
   similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,
   melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of
   course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),
   which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the
   public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they
   were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.
   Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it
   necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver
   small coins, which were leaving that country for the same
   reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then
   undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some
   concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries
   using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and
   Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by
   the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day
   transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a
   reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of
   these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the
   Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November
   20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of
   the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to
   establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the
   essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.
{2219}
   They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty
   centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900
   thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,
   reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.
   They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,
   the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,
   twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with
   five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900
   thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was
   thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion
   who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from
   five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below
   five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of
   the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …
   The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,
   to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …
   The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to
   fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their
   own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc
   silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of
   things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of
   the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed
   to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,
   and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power
   of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of
   silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state
   of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension
   of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities
   as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

      _J. L. Laughlin,
      The History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 146-155._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.
   The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the
   National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

   "In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was
   furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under
   thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks
   amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were
   issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up
   an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in
   circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When
   Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the
   three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of
   the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of
   the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was
   impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide
   for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase
   submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to
   $318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the
   government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day.
   The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year
   ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and
   even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which
   amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It
   was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased
   fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the
   country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided
   by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in
   anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of
   $50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin.
   'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to
   prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable
   paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient
   for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government
   of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was
   granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow,
   on the credit of the United States, not exceeding
   $250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an
   exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the
   United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing
   no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York,
   or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody
   had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible.
   Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act
   to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a
   direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per
   cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The
   Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New
   York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed
   loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they
   took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st
   of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par;
   and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per
   cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per
   cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the
   treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December,
   Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent
   financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be
   taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would
   be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that
   the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a
   direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the
   income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that
   duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies,
   bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the
   extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend
   upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose
   the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only
   suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by
   law, and that the time had come when the government might
   properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper
   circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from
   the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase
   said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By
   increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the
   bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national
   currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge
   of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not
   recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally
   worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of
   the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these
   recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by
   the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by
   the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other
   banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to
   suspend.
{2220}
   This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the
   shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing
   wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February,
   1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand
   notes. Before the end of the session further issues were
   provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes
   $300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long
   debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender
   for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure
   would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the
   issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks'
   was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently
   wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally
   advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes
   in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the
   provision making the notes a tender for private debts.
   Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000
   on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of
   $100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds
   should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be
   collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the
   principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments
   would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the
   debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the
   plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend,
   and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When
   Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had
   become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the
   treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress.
   The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two
   millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting
   to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current,
   ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the
   expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be
   provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by
   a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new
   interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in
   October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per
   cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the
   volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of
   prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and,
   ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to
   be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in
   the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In
   order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended
   the creation of banking associations under a national law
   requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of
   government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received
   with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper
   offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured
   by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr.
   Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse
   report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of
   January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the
   Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United
   States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy.
   The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the
   next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a
   special message to the House, announcing that he had signed
   the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States
   notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express
   his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add
   such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the
   suspended banks were still left free to increase their
   circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy
   must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was
   effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a
   bill to provide a national currency, differing in some
   respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the
   Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the
   20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th
   of February, 1863."

      _H. W. Richardson,
      The National Banks,
      chapter 2._

   "One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy
   our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as
   Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had
   adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had
   disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private
   note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for
   issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863,
   another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in
   notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For
   many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of
   silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of
   the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to
   200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at
   which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount
   sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding
   reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as
   currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034;
   812,000,000 bore no interest."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 204-208._

   The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to
   parity of value with gold until near the close of the year
   1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for
   resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was
   generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
      book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11,
      and book 2, chapter 2._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873.
   Adoption of the Gold Standard by Germany.

   "At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire
   found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform
   coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was
   essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of
   the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000
   was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany
   received from France bills of exchange in payment of the
   indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such
   as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way
   left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,
   Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation
   from silver to gold.
{2221}
   Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was
   composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more
   than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The
   substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like
   Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a
   path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to
   gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory
   measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871
   created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver
   coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio
   between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins
   were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the
   present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the
   intention of the Government in the future. … The next and
   decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the
   act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established
   as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as
   the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in
   1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this
   legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,
   and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into
   the new subsidiary currency."

     _J. L. Laughlin,
      History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      pages 136-140._

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1893.
   Stoppage of the free Coinage of Silver in India.

   The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the
   Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward
   the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

   ----------MONEY AND BANKING: End----------

   ----------MONGOLS: Start--------

MONGOLS:
   Origin and earliest history.

   "The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the
   word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is
   acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first
   given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of
   much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese
   accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid
   do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a
   great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the
   whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it
   gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the
   generic name by which the race was known in early times to the
   Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe
   of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from
   the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached
   hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall
   of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown,
   acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under
   the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and
   its border land from a very early period, and under their new
   name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which
   they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in
   Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles
   Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both
   races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish
   chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish
   influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by
   Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol
   Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 27-32._

   "Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of
   Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin
   to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home,
   leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and
   barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their
   very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks,
   had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the
   destinies of Western Asia."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

      _A. Vámbéry,
      Travels in Central Asia
      www.gutenberg.org #41751_

      See also, TARTARS.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
   Conquests of Jingiz Khan.

   "Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was
   Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153
   A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or
   propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a
   great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a
   vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part
   of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty
   armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could
   neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of
   social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure
   Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men,
   Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under
   a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows,
   swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary
   under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and
   Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against
   Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a
   large number of merchants who were under the protection of
   Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by
   the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the
   sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan
   then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young
   prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors
   of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury;
   Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in
   1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to
   death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre
   of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to
   the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle
   fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the
   enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran
   Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved
   by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals
   marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary
   in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less
   than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired
   out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the
   Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and
   Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated
   by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan
   for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and
   flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend
   there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year
   1227."

      _C. R. Markham,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 7._

{2222}

   In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons
   as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he
   nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the
   Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and
   Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made
   lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and
   Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

   "Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with
   Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more
   than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political
   economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative
   rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. …
   He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the
   world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis
   organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he
   generally knew well the internal condition of the country he
   was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and
   seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and
   laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they
   generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an
   ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with
   catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part
   in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief
   of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They
   employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. …
   They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and
   would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound
   by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the
   inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general
   massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no
   body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience
   their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep
   away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that
   his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free
   from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to
   read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished
   in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his
   followers."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      volume 1, pages 49, 108-113._

   "He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first
   order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or
   Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The
   manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast
   distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed
   in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from
   each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the
   alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to
   interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to
   a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all
   combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can
   offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to
   bear comparison with it."

      _D. C. Boulger,
      History of China,
      volume 1, chapter 21._

      See, also,
      CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;
      KHORASSAN;
      BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;
      SAMARKAND;
      MERV;
      BALKH;
      KHUAREZM,

MONGOLS: A. D. 1202.
   Overthrow of the Keraït, or the kingdom of Prester John.

      See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
   Conquests of the successors of Jingiz Khan.

   "Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of
   Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished
   the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all
   the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing
   his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai
   raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One
   portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor,
   whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great
   Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran
   Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire
   and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a
   lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found
   Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated
   with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th,
   1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had
   gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head
   against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with
   the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301].

   Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to
   the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful
   devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the
   defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and
   disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the
   barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote
   circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor
   Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and
   neither of them responded by anything better than words to the
   earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No
   human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing
   that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The
   Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of
   Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe.
   In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia,
   this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on
   the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the
   Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition
   under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the
   Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who
   died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who
   exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor
   Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol
   power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought
   entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather
   nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders,
   but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the
   great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The
   immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at
   Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and
   Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and
   countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or
   Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik,
   included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan,
   Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or
   the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and
   with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large
   part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a
   part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital
   eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
   and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and
   Khorasan."

      _H. Yule,
      Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,
      sections 92-94 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      chapters 4-5._

{2223}

[Image: Map of the Mongol Empire, A. D. 1300. ]

{2224}

MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
   The Kipchak empire.
   The Golden Horde.

   "It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the
   great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement
   in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered
   Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river
   Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes.
   The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the
   Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the
   command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with
   the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword
   and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held
   cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The
   Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow
   Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga,
   spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was
   occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks,
   who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh
   immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the
   river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai,
   Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the
   Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he
   entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the
   ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod,
   which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose
   rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to
   endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading
   and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the
   collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts;
   and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by
   Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour,
   Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although
   it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the
   commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more
   than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480.
   Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was
   conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the
   extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted
   tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way
   unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden
   Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in
   Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all
   their residuary resources in the Crimea."

      _C. I. Black,
      The Proselytes of Ishmael,
      part 3, chapter 4._

   "The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace,
   and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the
   German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a
   secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being
   known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of
   several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German
   hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The
   chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the
   Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that
   eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde."
   The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of
   Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several
   fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of
   Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long
   struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and
   absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 2, pages 1 and x._

      See, also, above: A. D. 1229-1294;

      KIPCHAKS; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1257-1258.
   Khulagu's overthrow of the Caliphate.

      See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1258-1393.
   The empire of the Ilkhans.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1371-1405.
   The conquests of Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1526-1605.
   Founding of the Mogul (Mongol) empire in India.

      See INDIA.: A. D. 1399-1605.

   ----------MONGOLS: End----------

MONITOR AND MERRIMAC, Battle of the.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

MONKS.

      See
      AUSTIN CANONS;
      BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
      CAPUCHINS;
      CARMELITE FRIARS;
      CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
      CISTERCIAN ORDER;
      CLAIRVAUX;
      CLUGNY;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      RECOLLECTS;
      SERVITES;
      THEATINES;
      TRAPPISTS.

MONMOUTH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

MONOCACY, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

      See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY;
      also, JACOBITE CHURCH.

MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, The.

   "The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord
   possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian
   error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually
   reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two
   natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is
   ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a
   political project for reconciling and reclaiming the
   Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The
   Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite
   (a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of
   breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to
   the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened
   rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of
   their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of
   the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession
   of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the
   Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church.
   Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in
   which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general
   council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the
   heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it.
{2225}
   'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded
   by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge
   among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of
   Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of
   this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro,
   their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the
   time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their
   wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in
   their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders,
   the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the
   vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they
   defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting
   serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the
   revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to
   the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good
   subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely
   free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless
   followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there
   appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological
   books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and
   in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a
   long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the
   Roman Church."

      _J. Wortabet,
      Researches into the Religions of Syria,
      pages 103-111; with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111._

MONROE, James,
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816, to 1825.

MONROE DOCTRINE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.

MONROVIA.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

   ----------MONS: Start--------

MONS: A. D. 1572.
   Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,
   and massacre.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MONS: A. D. 1691.
   Siege and surrender to Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

MONS: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

MONS: A. D. 1709.
   Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

MONS: A. D. 1713.
   Transferred to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MONS: A. D 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

   ----------MONS: End--------

MONS GRAMPIUS, Battle of.

      See GRAMPIANS.

MONS SACER, Secession of the Roman Plebeians to.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

MONS TARPEIUS.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL.

MONSIEUR.

   Under the old regime, in France, this was the special
   designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

MONT ST. JEAN, Battle of.

   The battle of Waterloo—
   is sometimes so called by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

MONTAGNAIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MONTAGNE NOIRE, Battle of (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

   ----------MONTANA: Start--------

MONTANA: A. D. 1803,
   Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
   The question.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MONTANA: A. D. 1864-1889.
   Organization as a Territory and admission as a State.

   Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was
   admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

   ----------MONTANA: End--------

MONTANISTS.

   A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the
   2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the
   Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment,
   descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of
   the greatest moment that were about to happen, and
   promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and
   morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th
   century."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries, 2d Century,
      section. 66._

MONTAPERTI, Battle of (1260).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

MONTAUBAN, Siege of (1621).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTAUKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MONTBÉLIARD, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

MONTCALM, and the defense of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756, to 1759.

MONTE CASEROS, Battle of (1852).

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

MONTE CASINO, The Monastery of.

      See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

MONTE ROTUNDO, Battle of (1867).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

MONTE SAN GIOVANNI, Battle and massacre (1495).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

MONTEBELLO,
   Battle of (1800).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

   Battle of (1859.)

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MONTECATINI, Battle of (1315).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

MONTENEGRO.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MONTENOTTE, Battles at (1796).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MONTEREAU, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTEREAU, The Bridge of (1419).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

MONTEREY, California:
   Possession taken by the American fleet (1846).

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Mexico:
   Siege by the Americans (1846).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Pennsylvania, The Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MONTEVIDEO: Founding of the city.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2226}

MONTEZUMA, The so-called Empire of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the elder), The Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D.1201-1203.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the younger),
   The English Parliament and the Barons' war.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MONTGOMERY, General Richard, and his expedition against Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTION and Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

MONTI OF SIENA, The.

      See SIENA.

MONTLEHERY, Battle of (1465).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

   ----------MONTMÉDY: Start--------

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1657.
   Siege and capture by the French and English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1659.
   Cession to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

   ----------MONTMÉDY: End--------

MONTMIRAIL, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTPELIER, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTPELIER, Second Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONTPENSIER, Mademoiselle, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

   ----------MONTREAL: Start--------

MONTREAL: A. D. 1535.
   The Naming of the Island.

         See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1611.
   The founding of the City by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1641-1657.
   Settlement under the seigniory of the Sulpicians.

      See CANADA: A.D. 1637-1657.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1689.
   Destructive attack by the Iroquois.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1690.
   Threatened by the English Colonists.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1760.
   The surrender of the city and of all Canada to the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Taken by the Americans and recovered by the British.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1813.
   Abortive expedition of American forces against the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

   ----------MONTREAL: End--------

MONTROSE, and the Covenanters.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640; and 1644-1645.

MONZA, Battle of (1412).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MONZON,
MONÇON, Treaty of (1626).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MOODKEE, Battle of (1845).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOOKERHYDE, Battle of (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MOOLTAN,
MULTAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Siege and capture by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOORE, Sir John:
   Campaign in Spain and death.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

MOORE'S CREEK, Battle of (1776).

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MOORISH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

   ----------MOORS: Start--------

MOORS, OR MAURI,
   Origin.

      See NUMIDIANS.

MOORS: A. D. 698-709.
   Arab conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709;
      and MAROCCO.

MOORS: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after.

MOORS: 11-13th Centuries.
   The Almoravides and Almohades in Morocco.

      See ALMORAVIDES; and ALMOHADES.

MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
   Persecution and final expulsion from Spain.
   The deadly effect upon that country.

   "After the reduction … of the last Mohammedan kingdom in
   Spain, the great object of the Spaniards became to convert
   those whom they had conquered [in violation of the treaty made
   on the surrender of Granada]. … By torturing some, by burning
   others, and by threatening all, they at length succeeded; and
   we are assured that, after the year 1526, there was no
   Mohammedan in Spain, who had not been converted to
   Christianity. Immense numbers of them were baptized by force;
   but being baptized, it was held that they belonged to the
   Church, and were amenable to her discipline. That discipline
   was administered by the Inquisition, which, during the rest of
   the 16th century, subjected these new Christians, or Moriscoes,
   as they were now called, to the most barbarous treatment. The
   genuineness of their forced conversions was doubted; it
   therefore became the business of the Church to inquire into
   their sincerity. The civil government lent its aid; and among
   other enactments, an edict was issued by Philip II., in 1566,
   ordering the Moriscoes to abandon everything which by the
   slightest possibility could remind them of their former
   religion. They were commanded, under severe penalties, to
   learn Spanish, and to give up all their Arabic books. They
   were forbidden to read their native language, or to write it,
   or even to speak it in their own houses. Their ceremonies and
   their very games were strictly prohibited. They were to
   indulge in no amusements which had been practised by their
   fathers; neither were they to wear such clothes as they had
   been accustomed to. Their women were to go unveiled; and, as
   bathing was a heathenish custom, an public baths were to be
   destroyed, and even an baths in private houses. By these and
   similar measures, these unhappy people were at length goaded
   into rebellion; and in 1568 they took the desperate step of
   measuring their force against that of the whole Spanish
   monarchy. The result could hardly be doubted; but the
   Moriscoes maddened by their sufferings, and fighting for their
   all, protracted the contest till 1571, when the insurrection was
   finally put down. By this unsuccessful effort they were
   greatly reduced in numbers and in strength; and during the
   remaining 27 years of the reign of Philip II. we hear
   comparatively little of them. Notwithstanding an occasional
   outbreak, the old animosities were subsiding, and in the
   course of time would probably have disappeared. At all events,
   there was no pretence for violence on the part of the Spaniards,
   since it was absurd to suppose that the Moriscoes, weakened in
   every way, humbled, broken, and scattered through the kingdom,
   could, even if they desired it, effect anything against the
   resources of the executive government.
{2227}
   But, after the death of Philip II., that movement began …
   which, contrary to the course of affairs in other nations,
   secured to the Spanish clergy in the 17th century, more power
   than they had possessed in the 16th. The consequences of this
   were immediately apparent. The clergy did not think that the
   steps taken by Philip II. against the Moriscoes were
   sufficiently decisive. … Under his successor, the clergy …
   gained fresh strength, and they soon felt themselves
   sufficiently powerful to begin another and final crusade
   against the miserable remains of the Moorish nation. The
   Archbishop of Valencia was the first to take the field. In
   1602, this eminent prelate presented a memorial to Philip III.
   against the Moriscoes; and finding that his views were
   cordially supported by the clergy, and not discouraged by the
   crown, he followed up the blow by another memorial having the
   same object. … He declared that the Armada, which Philip II.
   sent against England in 1588, had been destroyed, because God
   would not allow even that pious enterprise to succeed, while
   those who undertook it, left heretics undisturbed at home. For
   the same reason, the late expedition to Algiers had failed; it
   being evidently the will of Heaven that nothing should prosper
   while Spain was inhabited by apostates. He, therefore,
   exhorted the king to exile all the Moriscoes, except some whom
   he might condemn to work in the galleys, and others who could
   become slaves, and labour in the mines of America. This, he
   added, would make the reign of Philip glorious to all
   posterity, and would raise his fame far above that of his
   predecessors, who in this matter had neglected their obvious
   duty. … That they should all be slain, instead of being
   banished, was the desire of a powerful party in the Church,
   who thought that such signal punishment would work good by
   striking terror into the heretics of every nation. Bleda, the
   celebrated Dominican, one of the most influential men of his
   time, wished this to be done, and to be done thoroughly. He
   said, that, for the sake of example, every Morisco in Spain
   should have his throat cut; because it was impossible to tell
   which of them were Christians at heart, and it was enough to
   leave the matter to God, who knew his own, and who would
   reward in the next world those who were really Catholics. …
   The religious scruples of Philip III. forbade him to struggle
   with the Church; and his minister Lerma would not risk his own
   authority by even the show of opposition. In 1609 he announced
   to the king, that the expulsion of the Moriscoes had become
   necessary. 'The resolution,' replied Philip, 'is a great one;
   let it be executed.' And executed it was, with unflinching
   barbarity. About 1,000,000 of the most industrious inhabitants
   of Spain were hunted out like wild beasts, because the
   sincerity of their religious opinions was doubtful. Many were
   slain, as they approached the coast; others were beaten and
   plundered; and the majority, in the most wretched plight,
   sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of
   the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the
   women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped
   this fate, landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were
   attacked by the Bedouins, and many of them put to the sword.
   Others made their way into the desert, and perished from
   famine. Of the number of lives actually sacrificed, we have no
   authentic account; but it is said, on very good authority,
   that in one expedition, in which 140,000 were carried to
   Africa, upwards of 100,000 suffered death in its most
   frightful forms within a few months after their expulsion from
   Spain. Now, for the first time, the Church was really
   triumphant. For the first time there was not a heretic to be
   seen between the Pyrenees and the Straits of Gibraltar. All
   were orthodox, and all were loyal. Every inhabitant of that
   great country obeyed the Church, and feared the king. And from
   this happy combination, it was believed that the prosperity
   and grandeur of Spain were sure to follow. … The effects
   upon the material prosperity of Spain may be stated in a few
   words. From nearly every part of the country, large bodies of
   industrious agriculturists and expert artificers were suddenly
   withdrawn. The best systems of husbandry then known, were
   practised by the Moriscoes, who tilled and irrigated with
   indefatigable labour. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and
   sugar, and the manufacture of silk and paper were almost
   confined to them. By their expulsion all this was destroyed at
   a blow, and most of it was destroyed for ever. For the Spanish
   Christians considered such pursuits beneath their dignity. In
   their judgment, war and religion were the only two avocations
   worthy of being followed. To fight for the king, or to enter
   the Church was honourable; but everything else was mean and
   sordid. When, therefore, the Moriscoes were thrust out of
   Spain, there was no one to fill their place; arts and
   manufactures either degenerated, or were entirely lost, and
   immense regions of arable land were left uncultivated. …
   Whole districts were suddenly deserted, and down to the
   present day have never been repeopled. These solitudes gave
   refuge to smugglers and brigands, who succeeded the
   industrious inhabitants formerly occupying them; and it is
   said that from the expulsion of the Moriscoes is to be dated
   the existence of those organized bands of robbers, which,
   after this period, became the scourge of Spain, and which no
   subsequent government has been able entirely to extirpate. To
   these disastrous consequences, others were added, of a
   different, and, if possible, of a still more serious kind. The
   victory gained by the Church increased both her power and her
   reputation. … The greatest men, with hardly an exception,
   became ecclesiastics, and all temporal considerations, all
   views of earthly policy, were despised and set at nought. No
   one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all
   this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate.
   While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was
   receding. Every other country was making some addition to
   knowledge, creating some art, or enlarging some science, Spain
   numbed into a death-like torpor, spellbound and entranced by
   the accursed superstition which preyed on her strength,
   presented to Europe a solitary instance of constant decay."

      _H. T. Buckle,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 5, chapters 1-8 (volume 3)._

      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip III.,
      book 4._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MOORS: 15-19th Centuries.
   The kingdom of Marocco.

      See MAROCCO.

   ----------MOORS: End--------

MOPH.

      See MEMPHIS.

{2228}

MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

MOQUIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MORA, The.

   The name of the ship which bore William the Conqueror to
   England, and which was the gift of his wife, the Duchess
   Matilda.

MORAT, Battle of (1476).

      See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

   ----------MORAVIA: Start--------

MORAVIA:
   Its people and their early history.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE, &c.

MORAVIA: 9th Century.
   Conversion to Christianity.
   The kingdom of Svatopluk and its obscure destruction.

   "Moravia has not even a legendary history. Her name appears
   for the first time at the beginning of the 9th century, under
   its Slav form, Morava (German 'March,' 'Moehren'). It is used
   to denote at the same time a tributary of the Danube and the
   country it waters; it is met with again in the lower valley of
   that stream, in Servia, and appears to have a Slav origin.
   During the 7th and 8th centuries there is no doubt Moravia was
   divided among several princes, and had a hard struggle against
   the Avars. The first prince whose name is known was Moïmir,
   who ruled at the beginning of the 9th century. … During his
   reign Christianity made some progress in Moravia. … Moïmir
   tried to withstand the Germans, but was not successful; and in
   846 Louis the German invaded his country, deposed him, and
   made his nephew Rostislav, whom the chroniclers call Rastiz,
   ruler in his stead. … The new prince, Rostislav, determined
   to secure both the political and moral freedom of his country.
   He fortified his frontiers and then declared war against the
   emperor. He was victorious, and when once peace was secured he
   undertook a systematic conversion of his people. Thus came
   about one of the great episodes in the history of the Slavs,
   and their Church, the mission of the apostles Cyril and
   Methodius. … After having struggled successfully for some
   time against the Germans" Rostislav was "betrayed by his
   nephew and vassal, Svatopluk, into the hands of Karloman, duke
   of Carinthia and son of Louis the German, who put out his eyes
   and shut him up in a monastery. Svatopluk believed himself
   sure of the succession to his uncle as the price of his
   treachery, but a very different reward fell to his lot, as
   Karloman, trusting but little in his fidelity to the Germans,
   threw him also into captivity. The German yoke was, however,
   hateful to the Moravians; they soon rebelled, and Karloman
   hoped to avert the danger by releasing Svatopluk and placing
   him at the head of an army. Svatopluk marched against the
   Moravians, then suddenly joined his forces to theirs and
   attacked the Germans. This time the independence of Moravia
   was secured, and was recognized by the treaty of Forcheim
   (874). … Thenceforward peace reigned between Svatopluk and
   Louis the German. … At one time he [Svatopluk] was the most
   powerful monarch of the Slavs; Rome was in treaty with him,
   Bohemia gravitated towards the orbit of Moravia, while Moravia
   held the empire in check. … At this time [891] the kingdom
   of Svatopluk … included, besides Moravia and the present
   Austrian Silesia, the subject country of Bohemia, the Slav
   tribes on the Elbe and the Vistula as far as the neighbourhood
   of Magdeburg, part of Western Galicia, the country of the
   Slovaks, and Lower Pannonia." But Svatopluk was ruined by war
   with his neighbor, Arnulf, duke of Pannonia. The latter
   "entered into an alliance with Braclav, a Slovene prince,
   sought the aid of the king of the Bulgarians, and, what was of
   far graver importance, summoned to his help the Magyars, who
   had just settled themselves on the Lower Danube. Swabians,
   Bavarians, Franks, Magyars, and Slovenes rushed simultaneously
   upon Moravia. Overwhelmed by numbers, Svatopluk made no
   attempt at resistance; he shut up his troops in fortresses,
   and abandoned the open country to the enemy, who ravaged it
   for four whole weeks. Then hostilities ceased; but no durable
   peace could exist between the two adversaries. War began again
   in the following year, when death freed Arnulf from Svatopluk.
   … At his death he left three sons; he chose the eldest,
   Moïmir II., as his heir, and assigned appanages to each of the
   others. On his death-bed he begged them to live at peace with
   one another, but his advice was not followed. … Bohemia soon
   threw off those bonds which had attached her as a vassal to
   Svatopluk; the Magyars invaded Moravian Pannonia, and forced
   Moïmir into an alliance with them. … In the year 900 the
   Bavarians, together with the Chekhs, invaded Moravia. In 903
   the name of Moïmir disappears. As to the cause of his death,
   as to how it was that suddenly and for ever the kingdom of
   Moravia was destroyed, the chronicles tell us nothing. Cosmas
   of Prague shows us Moravia at the mercy of Germans, Chekhs,
   and Hungarians; then history is silent, towns and castles
   crumble to pieces, churches are overthrown, the people are
   scattered."

      _L. Leger,
      History of Austro-Hungary,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Maclear,
      Conversion of the West: The Slavs,
      chapter 4._

MORAVIA: A. D. 1355.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

   ----------MORAVIA: End----------

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
   Origin and early history.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457; and 1621-1648.

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):
   In Saxony and in America.
   The Indian Missions.

   "In 1722, and in the seven following years, a considerable
   number of these 'Brethren,' led by Christian David, who were
   persecuted in their homes, were received by Count Zinzendorf
   on his estate at Berthelsdorf in Saxony. They founded a
   village called Herrnhut, or 'the Watch of the Lord.' There
   they were joined by Christians from other places in Germany,
   and, after some time, Zinzendorf took up his abode among them,
   and became their principal guide and pastor. … In 1737, he
   consecrated himself wholly to the service of God in connection
   with the Moravian settlement, and was ordained a bishop. …
   Zinzendorf had before been received into the Lutheran
   ministry. The peculiar fervor which characterized his
   religious work, and certain particulars in his teaching,
   caused the Saxon Government, which was wedded to the
   traditional ways of Lutheranism, to exclude him from Saxony
   for about ten years (1736-1747). He prosecuted his religious
   labors in Frankfort, journeyed through Holland and England,
   made a voyage to the West Indies, and, in 1741, another voyage
   to America.
{2229}
   New branches of the Moravian body he planted in the countries
   which he visited. … It was a church within a church that
   Zinzendorf aimed to establish. It was far from his purpose to
   found a sect antagonistic to the national churches in the
   midst of which the Moravian societies arose. … With a
   religious life remarkable as combining warm emotion with a
   quiet and serene type of feeling, the community of Zinzendorf
   connected a missionary zeal not equalled at that time in any
   other Protestant communion. Although few in number, they sent
   their gospel messengers to all quarters of the globe."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      History of the Christian Church,
      pages 506-507._

   The first settlement of the Moravians in America was planted
   in Georgia, in 1735. "But Oglethorpe's border war with the
   Spaniards compelled him to call every man in his colony to
   arms, and the Moravians, rather than forsake their principles
   [of non-resistance, and dependence upon prayer], abandoned
   their lands and escaped to Pennsylvania [1740]. Here some of
   their brethren were already fixed. Among the refugees was the
   young David Zeisberger, the future head of the Ohio missions.
   Bethlehem on the Lehigh became, and is yet, the centre in
   America of their double system of missions and education. They
   bought lands, laid out villages and farms, built houses,
   shops, and mills, but everywhere, and first of all, houses of
   prayer, in thankfulness for the peace and prosperity at length
   found. The first mission established by Zinzendorf in the
   colonies was in 1741, among the Mohican Indians, near the
   borders of New York and Connecticut. The bigoted people and
   authorities of the neighborhood by outrages and persecution
   drove them off, so that they were forced to take refuge on the
   Lehigh. The brethren established them in a new colony twenty
   miles above Bethlehem, to which they gave the name of
   Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace). The prosperity of the Mohicans
   attracted the attention and visits of the Indians beyond. The
   nearest were the Delawares, between whom and the Mohicans
   there were strong ties of affinity, as branches of the old
   Lenni Lenape stock. Relations were thus formed between the
   Moravians and the Delawares. And by the fraternization between
   the Delawares and Shawanees … and their gradual emigration
   to the West to escape the encroachments of Penn's people, it
   occurred that the Moravian missionaries, Zeisberger foremost,
   accompanied their Delaware and Mohican converts to the
   Susquehanna in 1765, and again, when driven from there by the
   cession at Fort Stanwix, journeyed with them across the
   Alleghanies to Goshgoshink, a town established by the
   unconverted Delawares far up the Alleghany River." In 1770,
   having gained some important converts among the Delawares of
   the Wolf clan, at Kuskuskee, on Big Beaver Creek, they
   transferred themselves to that place, naming it Friedenstadt.
   But there they were opposed with such hostility by warriors
   and white traders that they determined "to plunge a step
   further into the wilderness, and go to the head chief of the
   Delawares at Gepelmukpechenk (Stillwater, or Tuscarawi) on the
   Muskingum. It was near this village that Christian Frederick
   Post, the brave, enterprising pioneer of the Moravians, had
   established himself in 1761, with the approbation of the
   chiefs. … By marriage with an Indian wife he had forfeited
   his regular standing with the congregation. His intimate
   acquaintance with the Indians, and their languages and
   customs, so far gained upon them that in 1762 he was permitted
   to take Heckewelder to share his cabin and establish a school
   for the Indian children. But in the autumn the threatened
   outburst of Pontiac's war had compelled them to flee." Early
   in 1772 the Moravian colony "was invited by the council at
   Tuscarawi, the Wyandots west of them approving it, to come
   with all their Indian brethren from the Alleghany and
   Susquehanna, and settle on the Muskingum (as the Tuscarawas
   was then called), and upon any lands that they might choose."
   The invitation was accepted. "The pioneer party, in the
   removal from the Beaver to Ohio, consisted of Zeisberger and
   five Indian families, 28 persons, who arrived at this
   beautiful ground May 3, 1772. … The site was at the large
   spring, and appropriately it was named for it Shoenbrun. In
   August arrived the Missionaries Ettwein and Heckewelder, with
   the main body of Christian Indians who had been invited from
   the Alleghany and the Susquehanna, about 250 in number. …
   This, and further accessions from the east in September, made
   it advisable to divide the colony into two villages. The
   second [named Gnadenhütten] was established ten miles below
   Shoenbrun. … In April, 1773, the remnants of the mission on
   the Beaver joined their brethren in Ohio. The whole body of
   the Moravian Indians … was now united and at rest under the
   shelter of the unconverted but … tolerant Delaware warriors.
   … The population of the Moravian villages at the close of
   1775 was 414 persons. … The calamity of the Moravians was
   the war of the American Revolution. It developed the dangerous
   fact that their villages … were close upon the direct line
   between Pittsburgh and Detroit, the outposts of the two
   contending forces." The peaceful settlement became an object
   of hostility to the meaner spirits on both sides. In
   September, 1781, by order of the British commander at Detroit,
   they were expelled from their settlement, robbed of all their
   possessions, and sent to Sandusky. In the following February,
   a half-starved party of them, numbering 96, who had ventured
   back to their ravaged homes, for the purpose of gleaning the
   corn left standing in the fields, were massacred by a brutal
   American force, from the Ohio. "So perished the Moravian
   missions on the Muskingum. Not that the pious founders ceased
   their labors, or that these consecrated scenes knew them no
   more. But their Indian communities, the germ of their work,
   the sign of what was to be accomplished by them in the great
   Indian problem, were scattered and gone, Zeisberger, at their
   head, labored with the remnants of their congregation for
   years in Canada. They then transferred themselves temporarily
   to settlements on the Sandusky, the Huron, and the Cuyahoga
   rivers. At last he and Heckewelder, with the survivors of
   these wanderings, went back to their lands on the Tuscarawas,
   now surrounded by the whites, but fully secured to them by the
   generosity of Congress."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Cranz,
      History of the United Brethren._

      _F. Bovet,
      The Banished Count (Life of Zinzendorf)._

      _E. de Schweinitz,
      Life and Times of David Zeisberger._

      _D. Zeisberger,
      Diary._

      _D. Berger,
      United Brethren
      (American Church History),
      volume 12._

{2230}

   ----------MOREA: Start--------

MOREA:
   Origin of the name.

   "The Morea must … have come into general use, as the name of
   the peninsula [of the Peloponnesus] among the Greeks, after
   the Latin conquest [of 1204-1205], even allowing that the term
   was used among foreigners before the arrival of the Franks.
   … The name Morea was, however, at first applied only to the
   western coast of the Peloponnesus, or perhaps more
   particularly to Elis, which the epitome of Strabo points out
   as a district exclusively Sclavonian, and which, to this day,
   preserves a number of Sclavonian names. … Originally the
   word appears to be the same geographical denomination which
   the Sclavonians of the north had given to a mountain district
   of Thrace in the chain of Mount Rhodope. In the 14th century
   the name of this province is written by the Emperor
   Cantacuzenos, who must have been well acquainted with it
   personally, Morrha. Even as late as the 14th century, the
   Morea is mentioned in official documents relating to the Frank
   principality as a province of the Peloponnesus, though the
   name was then commonly applied to the whole peninsula."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 1, section 4._

MOREA:
   The Principality of the.

      See ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.

   ----------MOREA: End--------

MOREAU, General,
   The Campaigns and the military and political fortunes of.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), (NOVEMBER);
      1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); and 1804-1805;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

MORETON BAY DISTRICT.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

MORGAN, General Daniel, and the War or the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

MORGAN, General John H., and his raid into Ohio and Indiana.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

MORGAN, William, The abduction of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

MORGANATIC MARRIAGES.

   "Besides the dowry which was given before the marriage
   ceremony had been performed, it was customary [among some of
   the ancient German peoples] for the husband to make his wife a
   present on the morning after the first night. This was called
   the 'morgengabe,' or morning gift, the presenting of which,
   where no previous ceremony had been observed, constituted a
   particular kind of connexion called matrimonium morganaticam,
   or 'morganatic marriage. As the liberality of the husband was
   apt to be excessive, we find the amount limited by the
   Langobardian laws to one fourth of the bridegroom's
   substance."

      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

MORGARTEN, Battle or (1315).

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

MORINI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

MORISCOES.

   This name was given to the Moors in Spain after their nominal
   and compulsory conversion to Christianity.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

MORMAERS,
MAARMORS.

   A title, signifying great Maer or Steward, borne by certain
   princes or sub-kings of provinces in Scotland in the 10th and
   11th centuries. The Macbeth of history was Mormaer of Moray.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, pages 49-51._

      See, also, SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.

MORMANS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

   ----------MORMONISM: Start--------

MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.
   Joseph Smith and the Book or Mormon.

   "Joseph Smith, Jr., who … appears in the character of the
   first Mormon prophet, and the putative founder of Mormonism
   and the Church of Latter Day Saints, was born in Sharon,
   Windsor County, Vermont, December 13, 1805. He was the son of
   Joseph Smith, Sr., who, with his wife Lucy and their family,
   removed from Royalton, Vermont, to Palmyra, New York, in the
   summer of 1816. The family embraced nine children, Joseph,
   Jr., being the fourth in the order of their ages. … At
   Palmyra, Mr. Smith, Sr., opened 'a cake and beer shop,' as
   described by his signboard, doing business on a small scale,
   by the profits of which, added to the earnings of an
   occasional day's work on hire by himself and his elder sons,
   for the village and farming people, he was understood to
   secure a scanty but honest living for himself and family. …
   In 1818 they settled upon a nearly wild or unimproved piece of
   land, mostly covered with standing timber, situate about two
   miles south of Palmyra. … Little improvement was made upon
   this land by the Smith family in the way of clearing, fencing,
   or tillage. … The larger proportion of the time of the
   Smiths … was spent in hunting and fishing … and idly
   lounging around the stores and shops in the village. … At
   this period in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or
   'Joe Smith,' as he was universally named, and the Smith
   family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate,
   whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people—the
   first named, the chief subject of this biography, being
   unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the
   generation. … Taciturnity was among his characteristic
   idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his
   intimate associates, except when first addressed by another;
   and then, by reason of his extravagancies of statement, his
   word was received with the least confidence by those who knew
   him best. He could utter the most palpable exaggeration or
   marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity. … He
   was, however, proverbially good-natured, very rarely if ever
   indulging in any combative spirit toward anyone, whatever
   might be the provocation, and yet was never known to laugh.
   Albeit, he seemed to be the pride of his indulgent father, who
   has been heard to boast of him as the 'genus of the family,'
   quoting his own expression. Joseph, moreover, as he grew in
   years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which
   qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and
   even of his father. … As he … advanced in reading and
   knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind,
   and frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with
   portions thereof. … The final conclusion announced by him
   was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on
   a false foundation, and the Bible a fable. … In September,
   1819, a curious stone was found in the digging of a well upon
   the premises of Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra. This stone
   attracted particular notice on account of its peculiar shape,
   resembling that of a child's foot. It was of a whitish, glassy
   appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz.
{2231}
   Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder sons Alvin and Hyrum, did the
   chief labor of this well-digging, and Joseph, Jr., who had
   been a frequenter in the progress of the work, as an idle
   looker-on and lounger, manifested a special fancy for this
   geological curiosity, and he carried it home with him. …
   Very soon the pretension transpired that he could see
   wonderful things by its aid. … The most glittering sights
   revealed to the mortal vision of the young impostor, in the
   manner stated, were hidden treasures of great value, including
   enormous deposits of gold and silver sealed in earthen pots or
   iron chests, and buried in the earth in the immediate vicinity
   of the place where he stood. These discoveries finally became
   too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his
   vision by looking at the stone in his hat! … The imposture
   was renewed and repeated at frequent intervals from 1820 to
   1827, various localities being the scenes of … delusive
   searches for money [for carrying on which Smith collected
   contributions from his dupes], as pointed out by the
   revelations of the magic stone. … Numerous traces of the
   excavations left by Smith are yet remaining as evidences of
   his impostures and the folly of his dupes, though most of them
   have become obliterated by the clearing off and tilling of the
   lands where they were made." In the summer of 1827 "Smith had
   a remarkable vision. He pretended that, while engaged in
   secret prayer, alone in the wilderness, an 'angel of the Lord'
   appeared to him, with the glad tidings that 'all his sins had
   been forgiven'; … also that he had received a 'promise that
   the true doctrine and the fulness of the doctrine and the
   fulness of the gospel should at some future time be revealed
   to him.' … In the fall of the same year Smith had yet a more
   miraculous and astonishing vision than any preceding one. He
   now arrogated to himself, by authority of 'the spirit of
   revelation,' and in accordance with the previous 'promises'
   made to him, a far higher sphere in the scale of human
   existence, assuming to possess the gift and power of 'prophet,
   seer, and revelator.' On this assumption he announced to his
   family friends and the bigoted persons who had adhered to his
   supernaturalism, that he was 'commanded,' upon a secretly
   fixed day and hour, to go alone to a certain spot revealed to
   him by the angel, and there take out of the earth a metallic
   book of great antiquity in its origin, and of immortal
   importance in its consequences to the world, which was a
   record, in mystic letters or characters, of the long-lost
   tribes of Israel, … who had primarily inhabited this
   continent, and which no human being besides himself could see
   and live; and the power to translate which to the nations of
   the earth was also given to him only, as the chosen servant of
   God. … Accordingly, when the appointed hour came, the
   prophet, assuming his practised air of mystery, took in hand
   his money-digging spade and a large napkin, and went off in
   silence and alone in the solitude of the forest, and after an
   absence of some three hours returned, apparently with his
   sacred charge concealed within the folds of the napkin. …
   With the book was also found, or so pretended, a huge pair of
   spectacles in a perfect state of preservation, or the Urim and
   Thummim, as afterward interpreted, whereby the mystic record
   was to be translated and the wonderful dealings of God
   revealed to man, by the superhuman power of Joseph Smith. …
   The sacred treasure was not seen by mortal eyes, save those of
   the one anointed, until after the lapse of a year or longer
   time, when it was found expedient to have a new revelation, as
   Smith's bare word had utterly failed to gain a convert beyond
   his original circle of believers. By this amended revelation,
   the veritable existence of the book was certified to by eleven
   witnesses of Smith's selection. It was then heralded as the
   Golden Bible, or Book of Mormon, and as the beginning of a new
   gospel dispensation. … The spot from which the book is
   alleged to have been taken is the yet partially visible pit
   where the money speculators had previously dug for another
   kind of treasure, which is upon the summit of what has ever
   since been known as 'Mormon Hill,' now owned by Mr. Anson
   Robinson, in the town of Manchester, New York. This book …
   was finally described by Smith and his echoes as consisting of
   metallic leaves or plates resembling gold, bound together in a
   volume by three rings running through one edge of them, the
   leaves opening like an ordinary paper book. … Translations
   and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet," and
   in 1830 the "Book of Mormon" was printed and published at
   Palmyra, New York, a well-to-do farmer, Martin Harris, paying
   the expense. "In claiming for the statements herein set forth
   the character of fairness and authenticity, it is perhaps
   appropriate to add … that the locality of the malversations
   resulting in the Mormon scheme is the author's birthplace;
   that he was well acquainted with 'Joe Smith,' the first Mormon
   prophet, and with his father and all the Smith family, since
   their removal to Palmyra from Vermont … ; that he was
   equally acquainted with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and
   with most of the earlier followers of Smith, either as
   money-diggers or Mormons; that he established at Palmyra, in
   1823, and was for many years editor and proprietor of the
   'Wayne Sentinel,' and was editorially connected with that
   paper at the printing by its press of the original edition of
   the 'Book of Mormon' in 1830; that in the progress of the work
   he performed much of the reading of the proof-sheets,
   comparing the same with the manuscript copies, and in the
   meantime had frequent and familiar interviews with the pioneer
   Mormons."

      _P. Tucker,
      Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,
      chapters 1-5, and preface._

   It is believed by many that the groundwork of the Book of
   Mormon was supplied by an ingenious romance, written about
   1814 by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, a Presbyterian minister of
   some learning and literary ability, then living at New Salem
   (now Conneaut), Ohio. This romance, which was entitled "The
   Manuscript Found," purported to narrate the history of a
   migration of the lost ten tribes of Israel to America. It was
   never published; but members of Mr. Spalding's family, and
   other persons, who read it or heard it read, in manuscript,
   claimed confidently, after the appearance of the Book of
   Mormon that the main body of the narrative and the notable
   names introduced in it were identical with those of the
   latter. Some circumstances, moreover, seemed to indicate a
   probability that Mr. Spalding's manuscript, being left during
   several weeks with a publisher named Patterson, at Pittsburgh,
   came there into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, a young printer,
   who appeared subsequently as one of the leading missionaries
   of Mormonism, and who is believed to have visited Joseph
   Smith, at Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon came to light.
{2232}
   On the other hand, Mormon believers have, latterly, made much
   of the fact that a manuscript romance without title, by
   Solomon Spalding, was found, not many years since, in the
   Sandwich Islands, by President Fairchild of Oberlin College,
   Ohio, and proved to bear no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.
   Spalding is said, however, to have written several romances,
   and, if so, nothing is proved by this discovery.

      _T. Gregg,
      The Prophet of Palmyra,
      chapters 1-11 and 41-45._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Dickinson,
      New Light on Mormonism._

      _J. M. Kennedy,
      Early Days of Mormonism,
      chapters 1-2._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.
   The First Hegira to Kirtland, Ohio, the Second to Missouri,
   the Third to Nauvoo, Illinois.
   The Danites.
   The building of the city and its Temple.
   Hostility of the Gentiles.
   The slaying of the Prophet.

   "Immediately after the publication of the Book the Church was
   duly organized at Manchester. On April 6, 1830, six members
   were ordained elders—Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph Smith, Jr.,
   Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Knight.
   The first conference was held at Fayette, Seneca county, in
   June. A special 'revelation' at this time made Smith's wife
   'the Elect Lady and Daughter of God,' with the high-sounding
   title of 'Electa Cyria.' In later years this lady became
   disgusted with her husband's religion. … Another revelation
   was to the effect that Palmyra was not the gathering-place of
   the Saints, after all, but that they should proceed to
   Kirtland, in Ohio. Consequently, the early part of 1831 saw
   them colonized in that place, the move being known as 'The
   First Hegira.' Still another revelation (on the 6th of June)
   stated that some point in Missouri was the reliable spot.
   Smith immediately selected a tract in Jackson county, near
   Independence. By 1833 the few Mormons who had moved thither
   were so persecuted that they went into Clay county, and
   thence, in 1838, into Caldwell county, naming their settlement
   'Far West.' The main body of the Mormons, however, remained
   in Kirtland from 1831 till they were forced to join their
   Western brethren in 1838. Brigham Young, another native of
   Vermont, joined at Kirtland in 1832, and was ordained an
   elder. The conference of elders on May 3, 1833, repudiated the
   name of Mormons and adopted that of 'Latter-Day Saints.' The
   first presidency consisted of Smith, Rigdon, and Frederick G.
   Williams. In May, 1835, the Twelve Apostles—among them
   Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde—left on a
   mission for proselytes. … The Mormons were driven from
   Missouri by Governor Boggs's 'Extraordinary Order,' which
   caused them to gain sympathy as having been persecuted in a
   slave State. They moved to Hancock county, Illinois, in 1840,
   and built up Nauvoo [on the Mississippi River, 14 miles above
   Keokuk] by a charter with most unusual privileges."

      _F. G. Mather,
      The Early Days of Mormonism
      (Lippincott's Magazine, August 1880)._

   In the midst of the troubles of Smith and his followers in
   Missouri, and before their removal to Nauvoo, there arose
   among them "the mysterious and much dreaded band that finally
   took the name of Danites, or sons of Dan, concerning which so
   much has been said while so little is known, some of the
   Mormons even denying its existence. But of this there is no
   question. Says Burton: 'The Danite band, a name of fear in the
   Mississippi Valley, is said by anti-Mormons to consist of men
   between the ages of 17 and 49. They were originally termed
   Daughters of Gideon, Destroying Angels—the gentiles say
   devils—and, finally, Sons of Dan, or Danites, from one of
   whom was prophesied he should be a serpent in the path. They
   were organized about 1837 under D. W. Patten, popularly called
   Captain Fearnot, for the purpose of dealing as avengers of
   blood with gentiles; in fact they formed a kind of death
   society, desperadoes, thugs, hashshashiyun—in plain English,
   assassins in the name of the Lord. The Mormons declare
   categorically the whole and every particular to be the
   calumnious invention of the impostor and arch apostate, Mr.
   John C. Bennett. John Hyde, a seceder, states that the Danite
   band, or the United Brothers of Gideon, was organized on the
   4th of July, 1838, and was placed under the command of the
   apostle David Patten, who for the purpose assumed the name of
   Captain Fearnot. It is the opinion of some that the Danite
   band, or Destroying Angels as again they are called, was
   organized at the recommendation of the governor of Missouri as
   a means of self-defence against persecutions in that State."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, pages 124-126._

   "The Mormons first attracted national notice about the time
   they quitted Missouri to escape persecution and took refuge in
   Illinois. In that free State a tract of land was granted them
   and a charter too carelessly liberal in terms. The whole body,
   already numbering about 15,000, gathered into a new city of
   their own, which their prophet, in obedience to a revelation,
   named Nauvoo; here a body of militia was formed under the name
   of the Nauvoo legion; and Joe Smith, as mayor, military
   commander, and supreme head of the Church, exerted an
   authority almost despotic. The wilderness blossomed and
   rejoiced, and on a lofty height of this holy city was begun a
   grotesque temple, built of limestone, with huge monolithic
   pillars which displayed carvings of moons and suns. … Nauvoo
   was well laid out, with wide streets which sloped towards
   well-cultivated farms; all was thrift and sobriety, no
   spirituous liquors were drunk, and the colonists here, as in
   their former settlements, furnished the pattern of insect
   industry. The wonderful proselyting work of this new sect
   abroad had already begun, and recruits came over from the
   overplus toilers in the British factory towns. … But there
   was something in the methods of this sect, not to speak of the
   jealousy they excited by their prosperity, which bred them
   trouble here as everywhere else where they came in contact
   with American commonplace life. It was whispered that the
   hierarchy of impostors grew rich upon the toils of their
   simple followers. Polygamy had not yet received the sanction
   of a divine revelation; and yet the first step towards it was
   practised in the theory of 'sealing wives' spiritually, which
   Smith had begun in some mysterious way that it baffled the
   gentile to discover. Sheriffs, too, were forbidden to serve
   civil process in Nauvoo without the written permission of its
   mayor.
{2233}
   All these strange scandals of heathenish pranks, and more,
   besides, stirred up the neighboring gentiles, plain Illinois
   backwoodsmen; and the more so that, besides his 3,000 militia,
   the Mormon prophet controlled 6,000 votes, which, in the close
   Presidential canvass of 1844, might have been enough to decide
   the election. Joe Smith, indeed, whose Church nominated him
   for President, showed a fatal but thoroughly American
   disposition at this time to carry his power into politics.
   This king of plain speech, who dressed as a journeyman
   carpenter, suppressed a newspaper which was set up by seceding
   Mormons. When complaint was made he resisted Illinois process
   and proclaimed martial law; the citizens of the surrounding
   towns armed for a fight. Joe Smith was arrested and thrown
   into jail at Carthage with his brother Hiram. The rumor
   spreading that the governor was disposed to release these
   prisoners, a disorderly band gathered at the jail and shot
   them [June 27, 1844]. Thus perished Smith, the Mormon founder.
   His death at first created terror and confusion among his
   followers, but Brigham Young, his successor, proved a man of
   great force and sagacity. The exasperated gentiles clamored
   loudly to expel these religious fanatics from Illinois as they
   had been expelled from Missouri; and finally, to prevent a
   civil war, the governor of the State took forcible possession
   of the holy city, with its unfinished temple, while the Mormon
   charter of Nauvoo was repealed by the legislature. The Mormons
   now determined [1846] upon the course which was most suited to
   their growth, and left American pioneer society to found their
   New Jerusalem on more enduring foundations west of the Rocky
   Mountains."

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, pages 547-549._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 8 and 10-11._

      _A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapter 41._

      _J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
      Journey to Great Salt Lake City,
      book 2, chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

      _R. F. Burton,
      The City of the Saints,
      page 359._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.
   The gentile attack on Nauvoo.
   Exodus of "the Saints" into the wilderness of the West.
   Their settlement on the Great Salt Lake.

   "During the winter of 1845-46 the Mormons made the most
   prodigious preparations for removal. All the houses in Nauvoo,
   and even the temple, were converted into work-shops; and
   before spring more than 12,000 wagons were in readiness. The
   people from all parts of the country flocked to Nauvoo to
   purchase houses and farms, which were sold extremely low,
   lower than the prices at a sheriff's sale, for money, wagons,
   horses, oxen, cattle, and other articles of personal property
   which might be needed by the Mormons in their exodus into the
   wilderness. By the middle of May it was estimated that 16,000
   Mormons had crossed the Mississippi and taken up their line of
   march with their personal property, their wives and little
   ones, westward across the continent to Oregon or California;
   leaving behind them in Nauvoo a small remnant of 1,000 souls,
   being those who were unable to sell their property, or who
   having no property to sell were unable to get away. The twelve
   apostles went first with about 2,000 of their followers.
   Indictments had been found against nine of them in the circuit
   court of the United States for the district of Illinois at its
   December term, 1845, for counterfeiting the current coin of
   the United States. The United States Marshal had applied to me
   [the writer being at that time Governor of Illinois] for a
   militia force to arrest them; but in pursuance of the amnesty
   agreed on for old offences, believing that the arrest of the
   accused would prevent the removal of the Mormons, and that if
   arrested there was not the least chance that any of them would
   ever be convicted, I declined the application unless regularly
   called upon by the President of the United States according to
   law. … It was notorious that none of them could be
   convicted; for they always commanded evidence and witnesses
   enough to make a conviction impossible."

      _T. Ford,
      History of Illinois,
      chapter 13._

   "The Saints who had as yet been unable to leave Nauvoo
   continued to labour assiduously at the completion of the
   temple, so as to accomplish one of the most solemn prophecies
   of their well-beloved martyr. The sacred edifice was
   ultimately entirely finished, at the end of April, 1846, after
   having cost the Saints more than a million dollars. It was
   consecrated with great pomp on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1846.
   … The day after the consecration of the temple had been
   celebrated, the Mormons withdrew from the building all the
   sacred articles which adorned it, and satisfied with having
   done their duty in accomplishing, though to no purpose
   otherwise, a Divine command, they crossed the Mississippi to
   rejoin those who had gone before them. Nauvoo was abandoned.
   There remained within its deserted walls but some hundred
   families, whom the want of means and the inability to sell
   their effects had not allowed as yet to start upon the road to
   emigration. The presence of those who were thus detained,
   together with the bruit caused by the ceremony of dedication,
   raised the murmurs of the gentiles, and seemed to keep alive
   their animosity and alarm. Their eager desire to be entirely
   rid of the Mormons made them extremely sensitive to every idle
   story respecting the projects of the latter to return. They
   imagined that the Saints had only left in detachments to seek
   recruits among the red-skins, meaning to come back with
   sufficient force once more to take possession of their
   property in Illinois. These apprehensions rose to such a pitch
   that the anti-Mormons plunged into fresh acts of illegality
   and barbarism. … On the 10th of September, 1846, an army of
   1,000 men, possessing six pieces of artillery, started to
   begin the attack under the direction of a person named Carlin,
   and of the Reverend Mr. Brockman. Nauvoo had only 300 men to
   oppose to this force, and but five small cannon, made from the
   iron of an old steamboat. The fire opened on the afternoon of
   the 10th, and continued on the 11th, 12th and 13th of
   September." Every attack of the besiegers was repulsed, until
   they consented to terms under which the remnant of the Mormons
   was to evacuate the town at the end of five days. "The Mormons
   had only three men killed and a few wounded during the whole
   affair; the loss of their enemies is unknown, but it would
   seem that it was heavy. It was agreed that a committee of five
   persons should remain at Nauvoo to attend to the interests of
   the exiles, and on the 17th of September, while the enemy, to
   the number of 1,625, entered the city to plunder, the remnant
   of the Mormons crossed the Mississippi to follow 'the track of
   Israel towards the west.' …
{2234}
   About the end of June, 1846, the first column of the emigrants
   arrived on the banks of the Missouri, a little above the point
   of confluence of this immense river with the Platte, in the
   country of the Pottawatamies, where it stopped to await the
   detachments in its rear. This spot, now known by the name of
   Council Bluffs, was christened Kanesville by the Mormons. …
   At this place, in the course of July, the federal government
   made an appeal to the patriotism of the Mormons, and asked
   them to furnish a contingent of 500 men for the Mexican war.
   Did the government wish to favour the Saints by affording them
   an opportunity of making money by taking service, or did it
   merely wish to test their fidelity? This we cannot decide. …
   The Saints generally regarded this levy as a species of
   persecution; however … they furnished a battalion of 520
   men, and received $20,000 for equipment from the war
   department." The head quarters of the emigration remained at
   Kanesville through the winter of 1846-47, waiting for the
   brethren who had been left behind. There were several
   encampments, however, some of them about 200 miles in advance.
   The shelters contrived were of every kind—huts, tents, and
   caves dug in the earth. The suffering was considerable and
   many deaths occurred. The Indians of the region were
   Pottawatamies and Omahas, both hostile to the United States
   and therefore friendly to the Mormons, whom they looked upon
   as persecuted foes of the American nation. "On the 14th of
   April [1847], Brigham Young and eight apostles, at the head of
   143 picked men and 70 carts laden with grain and agricultural
   implements, started in search of Eden in the far-west. … The
   23rd of July, 1847, Orson Pratt, escorted by a small advanced
   guard, was the first to reach the Great Salt Lake. He was
   joined the following day by Brigham Young and the main body of
   the pioneers. That day, the 24th of July, was destined to be
   afterwards celebrated by the Mormons as the anniversary of
   their deliverance. … Brigham Young declared, by divine
   inspiration, that they were to establish themselves upon the
   borders of the Salt Lake, in this region, which was nobody's
   property, and wherein consequently his people could follow
   their religion without drawing upon themselves the hatred of
   any neighbours. He spent several weeks in ascertaining the
   nature of the country, and then fixed upon a site for the holy
   city. … When he had thus laid the foundations of his future
   empire, he set off on his return to Council Bluffs, leaving on
   the borders of the Salt Lake the greater portion of the
   companions who had followed him in his distant search. During
   the summer, a convoy of 566 waggons, laden with large
   quantities of grain, left Kanesville and followed upon the
   tracks of the pioneers. … On their arrival at the spot
   indicated by the president of the Church, they set to work
   without a moment's repose. Land was tilled, trees and hedges
   planted, and grain sown before the coming frost." The main
   body of the emigrants, led by Brigham Young, moved from the
   banks of the Missouri about the 1st of May, 1848, and arrived
   at the Salt Lake the following autumn.

      _J. Remy and J. Brenchley,
      Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "On the afternoon of the 22d [August, 1847] a conference was
   held, at which it was resolved that the place should be called
   the City of the Great Salt Lake. The term 'Great' was retained
   for several years, until changed by legislative enactment. It
   was so named in contradistinction to Little Salt Lake, a term
   applied to a body of water some 200 miles to the south."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, chapter 10._

MORMONISM: A. D. 1850.
   Organization of the Territory of Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The rebellion in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1894.
   Admission of Utah to the Union as a State.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1894.

   ----------MORMONISM: End----------

MOROCCO.

      See MAROCCO.

MORONA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MORRILL TARIFF, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

MORRIS, Gouverneur,
   The framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   The origin of the Erie Canal.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

MORRIS, Robert, and the finances of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

MORRIS-DANCE, The.

   "Both English and foreign glossaries, observes Mr. Douce,
   uniformly ascribe the origin of this dance to the Moors,
   although the genuine Moorish or Morisco dance was, no doubt,
   very different from the European morris. … It has been
   supposed that the morris-dance was first brought into England
   in the reign of Edward III., and when John of Gaunt returned
   from Spain: but it is much more probable that we had it from
   our Gallic neighbours, or the Flemings."

      _H. Smith,
      Festivals, Games, etc.,
      chapter 18._

MORRIS ISLAND, Military operations on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

MORRIS'S PURCHASE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MORRISTOWN, N. J.:
   Washington in winter quarters (1777-1778).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777; and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

MORTARA, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY; A. D. 1848-1849.

MORTEMER, Battle of.

   The French army invading Normandy, A. D. 1054, was surprised
   by the Normans, in the town of Mortemer and utterly routed.
   The town was destroyed and never rebuilt.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

MORTIMER'S CROSS, Battle of (1461).

   One of the battles in the "Wars of the Roses," fought Feb. 2,
   1461, on a small plain called Kingsland Field, near Mortimer's
   Cross, in Herefordshire, England. The Yorkists, commanded by
   young Edward, Earl of March (soon afterwards King Edward IV.)
   were greatly superior in numbers to the Lancastrians, under
   the Earl of Pembroke, and won a complete victory.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

MORTMAIN, The Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

MORTON, Thomas, at Merrymount.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MORTUATH, The.

      See TUATH, THE.

MOSA, The.

   The ancient name of the river Meuse.

{2235}

   ----------MOSCOW: Start--------

MOSCOW: A. D. 1147.
   Origin of the city.

   "The name of Moscow appears for the first time in the
   chronicles at the date of 1147. It is there said that the
   Grand Prince George Dolgorouki, having arrived on the domain
   of a boyard named Stephen Koutchko, caused him to be put to
   death on some pretext, and that, struck by the position of one
   of the villages situated on a height washed by the Moskowa,
   the very spot whereon the Kremlin now stands, he built the
   city of Moscow. … During the century following its
   foundation, Moscow remained an obscure and insignificant
   village of Souzdal. The chroniclers do not allude to it except
   to mention that it was burned by the Tartars (1237), or that a
   brother of Alexander Nevski, Michael of Moscow, was killed
   there in a battle with the Lithuanians. The real founder of
   the principality of the name was Daniel, a son of Alexander
   Nevski, who had received this small town and a few villages as
   his appanage. … He was followed, in due course, by his
   brothers George and Ivan."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

MOSCOW: A. D. 1362-1480.
   Rise of the duchy which grew to be the Russian Empire.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1571.
   Stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1812.
   Napoleon in possession.
   The burning of the city.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER);
      and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   ----------MOSCOW: End--------

MOSKOWA,
BORODINO, Battle of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOSLEM.

      See ISLAM;
      also MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MOSQUITO INDIANS AND MOSQUITO COAST.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSQUITO,
      or MOSQUITO INDIANS;
      also NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850;
      and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

MOTASSEM, Al, Caliph, A. D. 833-841.

MOTAWAKKEL, Al, Caliph, A. D. 847-861.

MOTYE, Siege of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MOUGOULACHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOULEY-ISMAEL, Battle of (1835).

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

MOULTRIE, Colonel, and the defense of Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

MOUND-BUILDERS OF AMERICA, The.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

MOUNT BADON, Battle of.

   This battle was fought A. D. 520 and resulted in a crushing
   defeat of the West Saxons by the Britons, arresting the
   advance of the latter in their conquest of southwestern
   England for a generation. It figures in some legends among the
   victories of King Arthur.

      _J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 3._

MOUNT CALAMATIUS, Battle of.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MOUNT ETNA, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MOUNT GAURUS, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

MOUNT TABOR, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

MOUNT VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

MOUNTAIN, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE, The (1857).

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MOURU.

      See MARGIANA.

MOXO, The Great.

      See EL DORADO.

MOXOS,
MOJOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MOYTURA, Battle of.

   Celebrated in the legendary history of Ireland and represented
   as a fatal defeat of the ancient people in that country called
   the Firbolgs by the new-coming Tuatha-de-Danaan. "Under the
   name of the 'Battle of the Field of the Tower' [it], was long
   a favourite theme of Irish song."

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

MOZARABES,
MOSTARABES.

   The Christian people who remained in Africa and southern Spain
   after the Moslem conquest, tolerated in the practice of their
   religion, "were called Mostarabes or Mozarabes; they adopted
   the Arabic language and customs. … The word is from the
   Arabic 'musta'rab,' which means one 'who tries to imitate or
   become an Arab in his manners and language.'"

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1), with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 51._

MOZART HALL.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

MUFTI.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

MUGELLO, Battle of (A. D. 542).

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

MUGGLETONIANS.

      See RANTERS.

MUGHAL OR MOGUL EMPIRE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MUGWUMPS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

MUHAJIRIN, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MUHLBERG, Battle of (1547).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MÜHLDORF, OR MAHLDORF, Battle of (1322).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

MULATTO.

      See MESTIZO.

MULE, Crompton's, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

MÜLHAUSEN, Battle of (1674).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

MULLAGHMAST, The Massacre of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

MULLIGAN, Colonel James A.:
   Defense of Lexington, Missouri.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

MULTAN, OR MOOLTAN:
   Siege and capture by the English (1848-1849).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MUNDA, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 45.

MUNDRUCU, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

MUNERA GLADIATORIA.

      See LUDI.

   ----------MUNICH: Start--------

MUNICH: 13th Century.
   First rise to importance.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

MUNICH: A. D. 1632.
   Surrender to Gustavus Adolphus.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MUNICH: A. D. 1743.
   Bombardment and capture by the Austrians.

   See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

   ----------MUNICH: End--------

MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FORMS.

   See COMMUNE; BOROUGH; and GUILD.

{2236}

MUNICIPAL CURIA OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

MUNICIPIUM.

   "The term Municipium appears to have been applied originally
   to those conquered Italian towns which Rome included in her
   dominion without conferring on the people the Roman suffrage
   and the capacity of attaining the honours of the Roman state.
   … If the inhabitants of such Municipia had everything Roman
   except the right to vote and to be eligible to the Roman
   magistracies, they had Commercium and Connubium. By virtue of
   the first, such persons could acquire property within the
   limits of the Roman state, and could dispose of it by sale,
   gift, and testament. By virtue of the second, they could
   contract a legal marriage with the daughter of a Roman
   citizen."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

MUNSEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,
      and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

   ----------MÜNSTER: Start--------

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1532-1536.
   The reign of the Anabaptists.

      See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1644-1648.
   Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

   ----------MÜNSTER: End--------

MUNYCHIA.

      See PIRÆUS.

MUNYCHIA, Battle of (B. C. 403).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

MURA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MURAD V., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1876 (MAY-AUGUST).

MURAT, King of Naples, The career of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY),
      1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), to 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, 1813 (AUGUST), to (OCTOBER);
      ITALY: A. D. 1814, and 1815.

MURCI.

   A name given to degenerate Romans, in the later days of the
   Empire, who escaped military service by cutting off the
   fingers of their right hands.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 17._

MURET, Battle of (A. D. 1213).

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213;
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

MURFREESBOROUGH,
STONE RIVER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

MURRAY, The Regent, Assassination of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

MURRHINE VASES.

   "The highest prices were paid for the so-called Murrhine vases
   (vasa Murrhina) brought to Rome from the East. Pompey, after
   his victory over Mithridates, was the first to bring one of
   them to Rome, which he placed in the temple of the Capitoline
   Jupiter. Augustus, as is well known, kept a Murrhine goblet
   from Cleopatra's treasure for himself, while all her gold
   plate was melted. The Consularis T. Petronius, who owned one
   of the largest collections of rare vases, bought a basin from
   Murrha for 300,000 sestertii; before his death he destroyed
   this matchless piece of his collection, so as to prevent Nero
   from laying hold of it. Nero himself paid for a handled
   drinking-goblet from Murrha a million sestertii. Crystal vases
   also fetched enormous prices. There is some doubt about the
   material of these Murrhine vases, which is the more difficult
   to solve, as the only vase in existence which perhaps may lay
   claim to that name is too thin and fragile to allow of closer
   investigation. It was found in the Tyrol in 1837.

      See
      _Neue Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums,
      volume v. 1839._

   Pliny describes the colour of the Murrhine vases as a mixture
   of white and purple; according to some ancient writers, they
   even improved the taste of the wine drunk out of them."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 91._

   "I believe it is now understood that the murrha of the Romans
   was not porcelain, as had been supposed from the line,
   'Murrheaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis' (Propert. iv. 5.
   26.), but an imitation in coloured glass of a transparent
   stone."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 39, foot-note._

MURSA, Battle of (A. D. 351).

      See ROME: A. D. 337-361.

MUSCADINS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MUSCULUS, The.

   A huge movable covered way which the Romans employed in siege
   operations. Its construction, of heavy timbers, with a
   roof-covering of bricks, clay and hides, is described in
   Cæsar's account of the siege of Massilia.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 2, chapter 10._

MUSEUM, British.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND.

MUSEUM OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

MUSKHOGEES, OR MASKOKALGIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MUSSULMANS.

      See ISLAM.

MUSTAPHA I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1617-1618; and 1622-1623.

   Mustapha II., Turkish Sultan, 1695-1703.

   Mustapha III., Turkish Sultan, 1757-1774.

   Mustapha IV., Turkish Sultan, 1807-1808.

MUTA, Battle of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

MUTHUL, Battle of the.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 72).

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 43).

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MUTINA AND PARMA.

   On the final conquest of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans, about
   220 B. C. the Senate planted the colonies of Mutina (Modena)
   and Parma on the line of the Æmilian Road and assigned the
   territory of the Apuans to the new colony of Luca (Lucca).

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 41 (volume 2)._

MUTINY ACTS, The English.

   In 1689 the Parliament (called a Convention at first) which
   settled the English crown upon William of Orange and Mary,
   "passed the first Act for governing the army as a separate and
   distinct body under its own peculiar laws, called 'The Mutiny
   Act.' … The origin of the first Mutiny Act was this. France
   had declared war against Holland, who applied under the treaty
   of Nimeguen to England for troops. Some English regiments
   refused to go, and it was felt that the common law could not
   be employed to meet the exigency. The mutineers were for the
   time by military force compelled to submit, happily without
   bloodshed; but the necessity for soldiers to be governed by
   their own code and regulations became manifest. Thereupon the
   aid of Parliament was invoked, but cautiously.
{2237}
   The first Mutiny Act was very short in enactments and to
   continue only six months. It recited that standing armies and
   courts martial were unknown to English law, and enacted that
   no soldier should on pain of death desert his colours, or
   mutiny. At the expiration of the six months another similar
   Act was passed, also only for six months: and so on until the
   present practice was established of regulating and governing
   the army, now a national institution, by an annual Mutiny Act,
   which is requisite for the legal existence of a recognised
   force, whereby frequent meeting of Parliament is indirectly
   secured, if only to preserve the army in existence."

      _W. H. Torriano,
      William the Third,
      chapter 7._

   "These are the two effectual securities against military
   power: that no pay can be issued to the troops without a
   previous authorisation by the commons in a committee of
   supply, and by both houses in an act of appropriation; and
   that no officer or soldier can be punished for disobedience,
   nor any court-martial held, without the annual re-enactment of
   the mutiny bill."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 11 (volume 3)._

MUTINY OF THE ENGLISH FLEET.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

MUTINY OF THE PHILADELPHIA LINE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

MUTINY OF THE SEPOYS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

MUYSCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

MYCALE, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479.

MYCENÆ.

      See GREECE: MYCENÆ: AND ITS KINGS;
      also ARGOS; HERACLEIDÆ; and HOMER.

MYCIANS, The.

   A race, so-called by the Greeks, who lived anciently on the
   coast of the Indian Ocean, east of modern Kerman. They were
   known to the Persians as Maka.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 1._

MYLÆ, Naval battle at (B. C. 260).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MYONNESUS, Battle of (B. C. 190).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MYRMIDONS, The.

   "Æakus was the son of Zeus, born of Ægina, daughter of Asopus,
   whom the god had carried off and brought into the island to
   which he gave her name. … Æakus was alone in Ægina: to
   relieve him from this solitude, Zeus changed all the ants in
   the island into men, and thus provided him with a numerous
   population, who, from their origin, were called Myrmidons."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 10._

   According to the legends, Peleus, Telamon and Phocus were the
   sons of Æakus; Peleus migrated, with the Myrmidons, or some
   part of them, to Thessaly, and from there the latter
   accompanied his son Achilles to Troy.

MYSIANS, The.

      See PHRYGIANS.—MYSIANS.

MYSORE, The founding of the kingdom of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

MYSORE WARS, with Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saib.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783; 1785-1793;
      and 1798-1805.

MYSTERIES, Ancient Religious.

      See ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES.

MYSTICISM.
QUIETISM.

   "The peculiar form of devotional religion known under these
   names was not, as most readers are aware, the offspring of the
   17th century. It rests, in fact, on a substratum of truth
   which is coeval with man's being, and expresses one of the
   elementary principles of our moral constitution. … The
   system of the Mystics arose from the instinctive yearning of
   man's soul for communion with the Infinite and the Eternal.
   Holy Scripture abounds with such aspirations—the Old
   Testament as well as the New; but that which under the Law was
   'a shadow of good things to come,' has been transformed by
   Christianity into a living and abiding reality. The Gospel
   responds to these longings for intercommunion between earth
   and heaven by that fundamental article of our faith, the
   perpetual presence and operation of God the Holy Ghost in the
   Church, the collective 'body of Christ,' and in the individual
   souls of the regenerate. But a sublime mystery like this is
   not incapable of misinterpretation. … The Church has ever
   found it a difficult matter to distinguish and adjudicate
   between what may be called legitimate or orthodox Mysticism
   and those corrupt, degrading, or grotesque versions of it
   which have exposed religion to reproach and contempt. Some
   Mystics have been canonized as saints; others, no less
   deservedly, have been consigned to obloquy as pestilential
   heretics. It was in the East—proverbially the fatherland of
   idealism and romance—that the earliest phase of error in this
   department of theology was more or less strongly developed. We
   find that in the 4th century the Church was troubled by a sect
   called Massalians or Euchites, who placed the whole of
   religion in the habit of mental prayer; alleging as their
   authority the Scripture precept 'That men ought always to
   pray, and not to faint.' They were for the most part monks of
   Mesopotamia and Syria; there were many of them at Antioch when
   St. Epiphanius wrote his Treatise against heresies, A. D. 376.
   They held that every man is from his birth possessed by an
   evil spirit or familiar demon, who can only be cast out by the
   practice of continual prayer. They disparaged the Sacraments,
   regarding them as things indifferent: they rejected manual
   labor; and, although professing to be perpetually engaged in
   prayer, they slept, we are told, the greater part of the day,
   and pretended that in that state they received revelations
   from above. … The Massalians did not openly separate from
   the Church; they were condemned, however, by two Councils—one
   at Antioch in 391, the other at Constantinople in 426.
   Delusions of the same kind were reproduced from time to time
   in the Oriental Church; and, as is commonly the case, the
   originators of error were followed by a race of disciples who
   advanced considerably beyond them. The Hesychasts, or
   Quietists of Mount Athos in the 14th century, seem to have
   been fanatics of an extreme type. They imagined that, by a
   process of profound contemplation, they could discern
   internally the light of the Divine Presence—the 'glory of
   God'—the very same which was disclosed to the Apostles on the
   Mount of Transfiguration. Hence they were also called
   Thaborites.
{2238}
   The soul to which this privilege was vouchsafed had no need to
   practise any of the external acts or rites of religion. …
   The theory of abstract contemplation, with the extraordinary
   fruits supposed to be derived from it, travelled in due course
   into the West, and there gave birth to the far-famed school of
   the Mystics, of which there were various ramifications. The
   earliest exponent of the system in France was John Scotus
   Erigena, the contemporary and friend of Charles the Bald. …
   Erigena incurred the censures of the Holy See; but the results
   of his teaching were permanent. … The Mystics, or
   Theosophists as some style them, attained a position of high
   renown and influence at Paris towards the close of the 12th
   century. Here two of the ablest expositors of the learning of
   the middle age, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, initiated
   crowds of ardent disciples into the mysteries of the 'via
   interna,' and of 'pure love'—that marvellous quality by which
   the soul, sublimated and etherialized, ascends into the very
   presence-chamber of the King of kings. … The path thus
   traced was trodden by many who were to take rank eventually as
   the most perfect masters of spiritual science; among them are
   the venerated names of Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure, John
   Tauler of Strasburg, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrier. … But,
   on the other hand, it is not less true that emotional religion
   has been found to degenerate, in modern as well as in ancient
   times, into manifold forms of moral aberration. … To exalt
   above measure the dignity and privileges of the spiritual
   element in man carries with it the danger of disparaging the
   material part of our nature; and this results in the
   preposterous notion that, provided the soul be absorbed in the
   contemplation of things Divine, the actions of the body are
   unimportant and indifferent. How often the Church has combated
   and denounced this most insidious heresy is well known to all
   who have a moderate acquaintance with its history. Under the
   various appellations of Beghards, Fratricelli, Cathari,
   Spirituals, Albigenses, Illuminati, Guerinets, and Quietists,
   the self-same delusion has been sedulously propagated in
   different parts of Christendom, and with the same ultimate
   consequences. A revival of the last-named sect, the Quietists,
   took place in Spain about the year 1675, when Michel de
   Molinos, a priest of the diocese of Saragossa, published his
   treatise called 'The Spiritual Guide,' or, in the Latin
   translation, 'Manuductio spiritualis.' His leading principle,
   like that of his multifarious predecessors, was that of
   habitual abstraction of the mind from sensible objects, with a
   view to gain, by passive contemplation, not only a profound
   realisation of God's presence, but so perfect a communion with
   Him as to end in absorption into His essence. … Persons of
   the highest distinction—Cardinals, Inquisitors, nay, even
   Pope Innocent himself—were suspected of sharing these
   dangerous opinions. Molinos was arrested and imprisoned, and
   in due time the Inquisition condemned sixty-eight propositions
   from his works; a sentence which was confirmed by a Papal bull
   in August, 1687. Having undergone public penance, he was
   admitted to absolution; after which, in 'merciful'
   consideration of his submission and repentance, he was
   consigned for the rest of his days to the dungeons of the Holy
   Office. Here he died in November, 1692. … 'The principles of
   Quietism had struck root so deeply, that they were not to be
   soon dislodged either by the terrors of the Inquisition, or by
   the well-merited denunciations of the Vatican. The system was
   irresistibly fascinating to minds of a certain order. Among
   those who were dazzled by it was the celebrated Jeanne Marie
   De la Mothe Guyon," whose ardent propagation of her mystic
   theology in the court circles of France—where Fenelon,
   Madame de Maintenon, and other important personages were
   greatly influenced—gave rise to bitter controversies and
   agitations. In the end, Madame Guyon was silenced and
   imprisoned and Fenelon was subjected to humiliating papal
   censures.

      _W. H. Jervis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics._

      _J. Bigelow,
      Miguel Molinos, the Quietist._

      _T. C. Upham,
      Life of M'me Guyon._

      _H. L. S. Lear,
      Fenelon,
      chapters 3-5._

      _S. E. Herrick,
      Some Heretics of Yesterday,
      chapter 1._

      _H. C. Lea,
      Chapters from the Religious History of Spain: Mystics._

MYTILENE, Siege of.

   See LESBOS.


N

N. S.
   New Style.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NAARDEN: A. D. 1572.
   Massacre by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

NABATHEANS, The.

   "Towards the seventh century B. C., the name Edomite suddenly
   disappears, and is used only by some of the Israelitish
   prophets, who, in doing so, follow ancient traditions. Instead
   of it is found the hitherto unknown word, Nabathean.
   Nevertheless the two names, Nabathean and Edomite, undoubtedly
   refer to the same people, dwelling in the same locality,
   possessing the same empire, with the same boundaries, and the
   same capital, Selah [Petra]. Whence arose this change of name?
   According to an appearances from an internal revolution, of
   which we have no record, a change in the royal race and in the
   dominant tribe."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 7, chapter 4._

   "This remarkable nation [the Nabatheans, or Nabatæans] has
   often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the
   wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan
   branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan
   or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian
   stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most
   ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the
   sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these
   were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf
   of Suez and Aila, in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In
   their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for
   those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran
   from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,
   passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose
   still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer
   evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost
   extinct tradition."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 5, page 351._

{2239}

NABOB.
NAWAB.

   Under the Moghul empire, certain viceroys or governors of
   provinces bore the title of Nawab, as the Nawab Wuzeer or
   Vizier of Oude, which became in English speech Nabob, and
   acquired familiar use in England as a term applied to rich
   Anglo-Indians.

NADIR SHAH, sovereign of Persia, A. D. 1736-1747.

NAEFELS, OR NÖFELS, Battle of (1388).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

   Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NAGPUR:
   The British acquisition and annexation.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819, and 1848-1856.

NAHANARVALI, The.

      See LYGIANS.

NAHUA PEOPLES.
NAHUATL.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

NAIRS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAISSUS, The Battle of.

   See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

NAJARA, Battle of.

      See NAVARETTE.

NAMANGAN, Battle of (1876).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

NAMAQUA, The.

   See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAMNETES,
NANNETES, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

   ----------NAMUR: Start--------

NAMUR: A. D. 1692.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NAMUR: A. D. 1695.
   Siege and recovery by William of Orange.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

NAMUR: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

NAMUR: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and ceded to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: CONGRESS.

   ----------NAMUR: End--------

NANA SAHIB, and the Sepoy Revolt.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856; 1857 (MAY-AUGUST);
      and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

NANCY: Defeat and death of Charles the Bold (1477).

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

   ----------NANKING: Start--------

NANKING: A. D. 1842.
   Treaty ending the Opium War and opening Chinese ports.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

NANKING: A. D. 1853-1864.
   The capital of the Taiping Rebels.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

   ----------NANKING: End--------

   ----------NANTES: Start--------

NANTES:
   Origin of the name.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

NANTES: A. D. 1598.
   The Edict of Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

NANTES: A. D. 1685.
   The Revocation of the Edict.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

NANTES: A. D. 1793.
   Unsuccessful attack by the Vendeans.
   The crushing of the revolt and the frightful
   vengeance of the Terrorists.
   The demoniac Carrier and his Noyades.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      THE CIVIL WAR; and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

   ----------NANTES: End--------

NANTICOKES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NANTWICH, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

NAO.

      See CARAVELS.

NAPATA.

      See ETHIOPIA.

   ----------NAPLES: Start--------

NAPLES:
   Origin of the city.

      See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

NAPLES: A. D. 536-543.
   Siege and capture by Belisarius.
   Recovery by the Goths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NAPLES: A. D. 554-800.
   The dukedom.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

NAPLES: 8-9th Centuries.
   The duchy of Beneventum.

      See BENEVENTUM; also, AMALFI.

NAPLES: A. D. 1000-1080.
   The Norman Conquest.
   Grant by the Pope as a fief of the Church.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

NAPLES: A. D. 1127.
   Union of Apulia with Sicily and formation of the
   kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1081-1194.

NAPLES: A. D. 1282-1300.
   Separation from Sicily.
   Continuance as a separate kingdom under the House of Anjou.
   Adhesion to the name "Sicily."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300;
      also, TWO SICILIES.

NAPLES: A. D. 1312-1313.
   Hostilities between King Robert and the Emperor, Henry VII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

NAPLES: A. D. 1313-1328.
   King Robert's leadership of the Guelf interest in Italy.
   His part in the wars of Tuscany.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

NAPLES: A. D. 1343-1389.
   The troubled reign of Joanna I.
   Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.
   Political effects of the Great Schism in the Church.
   War of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.
   Interfering violence of Pope Urban VI.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

NAPLES: A. D. 1386-1414.
   Civil war between the Durazzo and the Angevin parties.
   Success of Ladislas.
   His capture, loss, and recapture of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

NAPLES: A. D. 1414-1447.
   Renewal of civil war.
   Defeat of the Angevins and acquisition of the
   crown by Alfonso, king of Aragon and Sicily.
   League with Florence and Venice against Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

NAPLES: A. D.1447-1454.
   Claim of King Alfonso to the duchy of Milan.
   War with Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

NAPLES: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown from those of Aragon and Sicily.
   Left to an illegitimate son of Alfonso.
   Revived French claims.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

NAPLES: A. D. 1494-1496.
   Invasion and temporary conquest by Charles VIII. of France.
   Retreat of the French.
   Venetian acquisitions in Apulia.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, 1494-1496;
      and VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

NAPLES: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Perfidious treaty of partition between
   Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

NAPLES: A. D. 1504-1505.
   Relinquishment of French claims.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

NAPLES: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528.
   Siege by the French and successful defense.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528-1570.
   Under the Spanish viceroys.
   Ravages of the Turks along the coast.
   The blockade and peril of the city.
   Revolt against the Inquisition.
   Alva's repulse of the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

{2240}

NAPLES: A. D. 1544.
   Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NAPLES: A. D. 1647-1654.
   Revolt of Masaniello.
   Undertakings of the Duke of Guise and the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

NAPLES: A. D. 1713.
   The kingdom ceded to the House of Austria.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NAPLES: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Sicily, forming a kingdom for
   Don Carlos, the first of the Neapolitan Bourbons.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

NAPLES: A. D. 1742.
   The neutrality of the kingdom in the War of the Austrian
   Succession enforced by England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

NAPLES: A. D. 1744.
   The War of the Austrian Succession.
   Neutrality broken.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

NAPLES: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

NAPLES: A. D. 1769.
   Seizure of Papal territory.
   Demand for the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

NAPLES: A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1796.
   Armistice with Bonaparte.
   Treaty of Peace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The king's attack upon the French at Rome.
   His defeat and flight.
   French occupation of the capital.
   Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

NAPLES: A. D. 1799.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Restoration of the king.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1800-1801.
   The king's assistance to the Allies.
   Saved from Napoleon's vengeance by the intercession
   of the Russian Czar.
   Treaty of Foligno.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805 (April).
   Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Napoleon's edict of dethronement against the king and queen.
   Its enforcement by French arms.
   Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER)

NAPLES: A. D. 1808.
   The crown resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of Spain),
   and conferred on Joachim Murat.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Murat on the throne.
   Expulsion of the English from Capri.
   Popular discontent.
   Rise of the Carbonari.
   Civil war in Calabria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

NAPLES: A. D. 1814.
   Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
   His treaty with the Allies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
   Murat's attempt to head an Italian national movement.
   His downfall and fate.
   Restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1815.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Insurrection.
   Concession of a Constitution.
   Perjury and duplicity of the king.
   Intervention of Austria to overthrow the Constitution.
   Merciless re-establishment of despotism.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
   Austrian intervention sanctioned.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NAPLES: A. D. 1830.
   Death of Francis I.
   Accession of Ferdinand II.

      See ITALY: A. D.1830-1832.

NAPLES: A. D. 1848.
   Abortive revolt.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NAPLES: A. D. 1859-1861.
   Death of Ferdinand II.
   Accession of Francis II.
   The overthrow of his kingdom by Garibaldi.
   Its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------NAPLES: End--------

NAPO,
QUIJO, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

NAPOLEON I.:
   His career.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

NAPOLEON III.:
   His career as conspirator, President of the
   French Republic, and Emperor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840;
      and 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER), to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

   ----------NARBONNE: Start--------

NARBONNE:
   Founding of the city.

   "In the year B. C. 118 it was proposed to settle a Roman
   colony in the south of France at Narbo (Narbonne). … The
   Romans must have seized some part of this country, or they
   could not have made a colony, which implies the giving of land
   to settlers. Narbo was an old native town which existed at
   least as early as the latter part of the sixth century before
   the Christian era. … The possession of Narbo gave the Romans
   easy access to the fertile valley of the Garonne, and it was
   not long before they took and plundered Tolosa (Toulouse),
   which is on that river. … Narbo also commanded the road into
   Spain."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

NARBONNE: A. D. 437.
   Besieged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

NARBONNE: A. D. 525-531.
   The capital of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

NARBONNE: A. D. 719.
   Capture and occupation by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

NARBONNE: A. D. 752-759.
   Siege and recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

   ----------NARBONNE: End--------

NARISCI, The.

      See MARCOMANNI.

NARRAGANSETTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, 1674-1675,
      1675, and 1676-1678.

NARSES, Campaigns of.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NARVA, Siege and Battle of (1700).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

NARVAEZ, Expedition of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

NASEBY, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).

   ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: Start--------

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1779-1784.
   Origin and name of the city.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

{2241}

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.
   Occupied by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);
      and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1864.
   Under siege.
   Defeat of Hood's army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A D. 1864 (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   ----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: End--------

NASI, The.

   This was the title of the President of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

NASR-ED-DEEN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1848-.

NASSAU, The House of.

   "We find an Otho, Count of Nassau, so long ago as the
   beginning of the 10th century, employed as general under the
   Emperor Henry I … in subduing a swarm of savage Hungarians,
   who for many years had infested Germany. … The same
   fortunate warrior had a principal hand afterwards in reducing
   the Vandals, Danes, Sclavonians, Dalmatians, and Bohemians.
   Among the descendants of Otho of Nassau, Walram I and III more
   particularly distinguished themselves in the cause of the
   German Emperors; the former under the victorious Otho I, the
   latter under Conrad II. It was to these faithful services of
   his progenitors that, in a great measure, were owing the large
   possessions of Henry, surnamed the Rich, third in descent from
   the last mentioned Walram, and grandfather to the brave but
   unhappy Emperor Adolphus [deposed and slain at the battle of
   Gelheim, in 1298.]

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

   The accession, by marriage, of Breda, Vianden, and other
   lordships in the Netherlands, gave the Nassaus such a weight
   in those provinces that John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, and his
   son Engelbert II, were both successively appointed Governors
   of Brabant by the Sovereigns of that State [Charles the Bold,
   Duke of Burgundy, and his son-in-law, the Emperor Maximilian].
   … The last, who was likewise honoured with the commission of
   Maximilian I's Lieutenant-General in the Low-Countries,
   immortalized his fame, at the same time that he secured his
   master's footing there, by the glorious victory of
   Guinegaste,"—or Guinegate, or the "Battle of the Spurs."

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513—1515.

      _J. Breval,
      History of the House of Nassau,
      pages 2-3._

   Engelbert II. dying childless, "was succeeded by his brother
   John, whose two sons, Henry and William, of Nassau, divided
   the great inheritance after their father's death. William
   succeeded to the German estates, became a convert to
   Protestantism, and introduced the Reformation into his
   dominions. Henry, the eldest son, received the family
   possessions and titles in Luxembourg, Brabant, Flanders and
   Holland, and distinguished himself as much as his uncle
   Engelbert, in the service of the Burgundo-Austrian house. The
   confidential friend of Charles V., whose governor he had been
   in that Emperor's boyhood, he was ever his most efficient and
   reliable adherent. It was he whose influence placed the
   imperial crown upon the head of Charles. In 1515 he espoused
   Claudia de Chalons, sister of Prince Philibert of Orange, 'in
   order,' as he wrote to his father, 'to be obedient to his
   imperial Majesty, to please the King of France, and more
   particularly for the sake of his own honor and profit.' His
   son Rene de Nassau-Chalons succeeded Philibert. The little
   principality of Orange, so pleasantly situated between
   Provence and Dauphiny, but in such, dangerous proximity to the
   seat of the 'Babylonian captivity' of the popes at Avignon,
   thus passed to the family of Nassau. The title was of high
   antiquity. Already in the reign of Charlemagne, Guillaume au
   Court-Nez, or 'William with the Short Nose,' had defended the
   little town of Orange against the assaults of the Saracens.
   The interest and authority acquired in the demesnes thus
   preserved by his valor became extensive, and in process of
   time hereditary in his race. The principality became an
   absolute and free sovereignty, and had already descended, in
   defiance of the Salic law, through the three distinct families
   of Orange, Baux, and Chalons. In 1544, Prince Rene died at the
   Emperor's feet in the trenches of Saint Dizier. Having no
   legitimate children, he left all his titles and estates to his
   cousin-german, William of Nassau [the great statesman and
   soldier, afterwards known as William the Silent], son of his
   father's brother William, who thus at the age of eleven years
   became William the Ninth of Orange."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   The Dutch branch of the House of Nassau is now represented by
   the royal family of Holland. The possessions of the German
   branch, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, after
   frequent partitioning, was finally gathered into a duchy,
   which Prussia extinguished and absorbed in 1866.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Macmillan's Magazine, February, 1875)._

      _Baron Maurier,
      Lives of all the Princes of Orange._

      See, also, ORANGE;
      and GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NAT TURNER'S INSURRECTION.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

   ----------NATAL: Start--------

NATAL: The Name.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NATAL: A. D. 1834-1843.
   Founding of the colony as a Dutch republic.
   Its absorption in the British dominions.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

   ----------NATAL: End--------

NATALIA, Queen of Servia.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

NATCHEZ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      NATCHESAN FAMILY, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

NATCHEZ: A. D. 1862.
   Taken by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NATCHITOCHES, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, German Revolution.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.

NATIONAL CONVENTION, French, End of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

NATIONALISTS, OR HOME RULERS, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

{2242}

NATIONALITY, The Principle of.

   "Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of
   history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing
   it may be very different in their origin. The point of
   departure is of little importance; the only essential thing is
   the point reached. The Swiss nationality is the most complete.
   It embraces three families of people, each of which speaks its
   own language. Moreover, since the Swiss territory belongs to
   three geographical regions, separated by high mountains,
   Switzerland, which has vanquished the fatality of nature, from
   both the ethnographical and geographical point of view, is a
   unique and wonderful phenomenon. But she is a confederation,
   and for a long time has been a neutral country. Thus her
   constitution has not been subjected to the great ordeal of
   fire and sword. France, despite her diverse races—Celtic,
   German, Roman, and Basque—has formed a political entity that
   most resembles a moral person. The Bretons and Alsacians, who
   do not all understand the language of her government, have not
   been the least devoted of her children in the hour of
   tribulation. Among the great nations France is the nation par
   excellence. Elsewhere the nationality blends, or tends to
   blend, with the race, a natural development and, hence, one
   devoid of merit. All the countries that have not been able to
   unite their races into a nation, have a more or less troubled
   existence. Prussia has not been able to nationalize (that is
   the proper word to use) her Polish subjects; hence she has a
   Polish question, not to mention at present any other. England
   has an Irish question. Both Turkey and Austria have a number
   of such questions. Groups of people in various parts of the
   Austrian Empire demand from the Emperor that they may be
   allowed to live as Germans, Hungarians, Tsechs, Croatians, in
   fact, even as Italians. They do not revolt against him; on the
   contrary, each of them offers him a crown. The time is,
   however, past when a single head can wear several crowns;
   to-day every crown is heavy. These race claims are not merely
   a cause of internal troubles; the agitations that they arouse
   may lead to great wars. Evidently no state will ever interpose
   between Ireland and England, but, while quarrels take place
   between Germans and Slavs, there will intervene the two
   conflicting forces of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism,
   formidable results and final consequences of ethnographical
   patriotism. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism are, indeed, not
   forces officially acknowledged and organized. The Emperor of
   Germany can honestly deny that he is a Pan-Germanist, and the
   Tsar that he is a Pan-Slavist. Germans and Slavs of Austria,
   and Slavs of the Balkans, may, for their part, desire to
   remain Austrian or independent, as they are to-day. It is none
   the less true, however, that there is in Europe an old quarrel
   between two great races, that each of them is represented by a
   powerful empire, and that these empires cannot forever remain
   unconcerned about the quarrels of the two races. … The chief
   application of the principle of nationality has been the
   formation of the Italian and German nations. In former times
   the existence, in the centre of the Continent, of two objects
   of greed was a permanent cause of war. Will the substitution
   of two important states for German anarchy and Italian
   polyarchy prove a guaranty of future peace?"

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 5, sections 6-7._

NATIONALRATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

NATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

NATIVE STATES OF INDIA.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

NATIVI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL, &c.: ENGLAND.

NAUARCHI.

   The title given in ancient Sparta to the commanders of the
   fleet. At Athens "the term Nauarchi seems to have been
   officially applied only to the commanders of the so-called
   sacred triremes."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1, and 3._

NAUCRATIS.

      See NAUKRATIS.

NAUKRARIES.

      See PHYLÆ.

NAUKRATIS.

   "Naukratis was for a long time the privileged port [in Egypt]
   for Grecian commerce with Egypt. No Greek merchant was
   permitted to deliver goods in any other part (port), or to
   enter any other of the mouths of the Nile except the Kanôpic.
   If forced into any of them by stress of weather, he was
   compelled to make oath that his arrival was a matter of
   necessity, and to convey his goods round by sea into the
   Kanôpic branch to Naukratis; and if the weather still forbade
   such a proceeding, the merchandise was put into barges and
   conveyed round to Naukratis by the internal canals of the
   delta. Such a monopoly, which made Naukratis in Egypt
   something like Canton in China or Nangasaki in Japan, no
   longer subsisted in the time of Herodotus. … At what precise
   time Naukratis first became licensed for Grecian trade, we
   cannot directly make out. But there seems reason to believe
   that it was the port to which the Greek merchants first went,
   so soon as the general liberty of trading with the country was
   conceded to them; and this would put the date of such grant at
   least as far back as the foundation of Kyrene, … about 630
   B. C., during the reign of Psammetichus. … [About a century
   later, Amasis] sanctioned the constitution of a formal and
   organised emporium or factory, invested with commercial
   privileges, and armed with authority exercised by presiding
   officers regularly chosen. This factory was connected with,
   and probably grew out of, a large religious edifice and
   precinct, built at the joint cost of nine Grecian cities: four
   of them Ionic,—Chios, Teos, Phokæa and Klazomenæ; four
   Doric,—Rhodes, Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis; and one
   Æolic,—Mitylene. By these nine cities the joint temple and
   factory was kept up and its presiding magistrates chosen; but
   its destination, for the convenience of Grecian commerce
   generally, seems revealed by the imposing title of The
   Hellênion."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 20._

   The site of Naukratis has been determined lately by the
   excavations of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, begun in 1885, the
   results of which are appearing in the publications of the
   "Egypt Exploration Fund." The ruins of the ancient city are
   found buried under a mound called Nebireh. Its situation was
   west of the Canobic branch of the Nile, on a canal which
   connected it with that stream.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.

NAULOCHUS, Battle of.

   A naval battle fought near Naulochus, on the coast of Sicily,
   in which Agrippa, commanding for the triumvir Octavius,
   defeated and destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompeius, B. C. 36.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 27._

{2243}

NAUMACHIÆ.

   The naumachiæ of the Romans were structures resembling
   excavated amphitheatres, but having the large central space
   filled with water, for the representation of naval combats.
   "The great Naumachia of Augustus was 1,800 feet long and 1,200
   feet broad."

      _R. Burn.
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction_.

NAUPACTUS.

      See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;
      and GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

NAUPACTUS, Battle of (B. C. 429).

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

NAUPACTUS, Treaty of.

   A treaty, concluded B. C. 217, which terminated what was
   called the Social War, between the Achæan League, joined with
   Philip of Macedonia, and the Ætolian League, in alliance with
   Sparta.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 63._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 8, section 1._

NAUPLIA.

      See ARGOS.

NAURAGHI.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

NAUSETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NAUVOO, The Mormon city of.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, and 1846-1848.

NAVAJOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ATHAPASCAN FAMILY and APACHE GROUP.

NAVARETTE
NAJARA, Battle of.

   Won, April 3, 1367, by the English Black Prince over a Spanish
   and French army, in a campaign undertaken to restore Peter the
   Cruel to the throne of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

   ----------NAVARINO: Start--------

NAVARINO: B. C. 425.
   An ancient episode in the harbor.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1686.
   Taken by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1827.
   Battle and destruction of the Turkish fleet.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------NAVARINO: End--------

   ----------NAVARRE: Start--------
NAVARRE:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See BASQUES.

NAVARRE:
   Origin of the kingdom.

   "No historical subject is wrapt in greater obscurity than the
   origin and early history of the kingdom of Navarre. Whether,
   during a great portion of the eighth and ninth centuries, the
   country was independent or tributary; and, if dependent,
   whether it obeyed the Franks, the Asturians, or the Arabs, or
   successively all three, are speculations which have long
   exercised the pens of the peninsular writers. … It seems
   undoubted that, in just dread of the Mohammedan domination,
   the inhabitants of these regions, as well as those of
   Catalonia, applied for aid to the renowned emperor of the
   Franks [Charlemagne]; and that he, in consequence, in 778,
   poured his legions into Navarre, and seized Pamplona. It seems
   no less certain that, from this period, he considered the
   country as a fief of his crown; and that his pretensions,
   whether founded in violence or in the voluntary submission of
   the natives, gave the highest umbrage to the Asturian kings:
   the feudal supremacy thenceforth became an apple of discord
   between the two courts, each striving to gain the homage of
   the local governors. … Thus things remained until the time
   of Alfonso III., who … endeavoured to secure peace both with
   Navarre and France by marrying a princess related to both
   Sancho Iñigo, count of Bigorre, and to the Frank sovereign,
   and by consenting that the province should be held as an
   immovable fief by that count. This Sancho Iñigo, besides his
   lordship of Bigorre, for which he was the vassal of the French
   king, had domains in Navarre, and is believed, on apparently
   good foundation, to have been of Spanish descent. He is said,
   however, not to have been the first count of Navarre; that his
   brother Aznar held the fief before him, nominally dependent on
   king Pepin, but successfully laying the foundation of
   Navarrese independence. If the chronology which makes Sancho
   succeed Aznar in 836, and the event itself, be correct,
   Alfonso only confirmed the count in the lordship. In this
   case, the only remaining difficulty is to determine whether
   the fief was held from Charles or Alfonso. … But whichever
   of the princes was acknowledged for the time the lord
   paramount of the province, there can be little doubt that both
   governor and people were averse to the sway of either; both
   had long aspired to independence, and that independence was at
   hand. The son of this Sancho Iñigo was Garcia, father of
   Sancho Garces, and the first king of Navarre [assuming the
   crown about 885-891]; the first, at least, whom … historic
   criticism can admit."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 2._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1026.
   Acquisition of the crown of Castile by King Sancho el Mayor.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1234.
   Succession of Thibalt, Count of Champagne, to the throne.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1284-1328.
   Union with France, and separation.

   In 1284, the marriage of Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of
   Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, to Philip
   IV. of France, united the crown of Navarre to that of France.
   They were separated in 1328, on the death of her last
   surviving son, Charles IV., without male issue. Philip of
   Valois secured the French crown, under the so called Salic
   law, but that of Navarre passed to Jeanne's grand-daughter, of
   her own name.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
   Usurpation of John II. of Aragon.
   The House of Foix and the D'Albrets.
   Conquest by Ferdinand.
   Incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

   Blanche, daughter of Charles III. of Navarre and heiress of
   the kingdom, married John II. of Aragon, to whom she gave
   three children, namely, Don Carlos, or Charles, "who, as heir
   apparent, bore the title of Prince of Viana, and two
   daughters, Blanche and Eleanor. Don Carlos is known by his
   virtues and misfortunes. At the death of his mother Blanche
   [1442], he should have succeeded to the throne of Navarre; but
   John II. was by no means disposed to relinquish the title
   which he had acquired by marriage, and Carlos consented to be
   his father's viceroy. But even this dignity he was not
   permitted to enjoy unmolested." Persecuted through life,
   sometimes imprisoned, sometimes in exile, he died at the age
   of forty, in 1461.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

{2244}

   "By the death of Don Carlos, the succession to the crown of
   Navarre devolved to his sister Blanche, the divorced wife of
   Henry IV. of Castile; and that amiable princess now became an
   object of jealousy not only to her father but also to her
   younger sister, Eleanor, married to the Count of Foix, to whom
   John II. had promised the reversion of Navarre after his own
   death. Gaston de Foix, the offspring of this union, had
   married a sister of Louis XI.; and it had been provided in a
   treaty between that monarch and John II., that in order to
   secure the succession of the House of Foix to Navarre, Blanche
   should be delivered into the custody of her sister. John
   executed this stipulation without remorse. Blanche was
   conducted to the Castle of Orthès in Bearn (April 1462),
   where, after a confinement of nearly two years, she was
   poisoned by order of her sister Eleanor." After committing
   this crime, the latter waited nearly fifteen years for the
   crown which it was expected to win, and then enjoyed it but
   three weeks. Her father reigned until the 20th of January,
   1479, when he died; the guilty daughter soon followed him.
   "After Eleanor's brief reign … the blood-stained sceptre of
   Navarre passed to her grandson Phœbus, 1479, who, however,
   lived only four years, and was succeeded by his sister
   Catherine. Ferdinand and Isabella [now occupying the thrones
   of Aragon and Castile] endeavoured to effect a marriage
   between Catherine and their own heir; but this scheme was
   frustrated by Magdalen, the queen-mother, a sister of Louis
   XI. of France, who brought about a match between her daughter
   and John d'Albret, a French nobleman who had large possessions
   on the borders of Navarre (1485). Nevertheless the Kings of
   Spain supported Catherine and her husband against her uncle,
   John de Foix, viscount of Narbonne, who pretended to the
   Navarese crown on the ground that it was limited to male
   heirs; and after the death of John, the alliance with Spain
   was drawn still closer by the avowed purpose of Louis XII. to
   support his nephew, Gaston de Foix, in the claims of his
   father. After the fall of that young hero at Ravenna [see
   ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513], his pretensions to the throne of
   Navarre devolved to his sister, Germaine de Foix, the second
   wife of King Ferdinand [see SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517], an event
   which entirely altered the relations between the courts of
   Spain and Navarre. Ferdinand had now an interest in supporting
   the claims of the house of Foix-Narbonne; and Catherine, who
   distrusted him, despatched in May 1512, plenipotentiaries to
   the French court to negotiate a treaty of alliance." But it
   was too late. Ferdinand had already succeeded in diverting to
   Navarre an expedition which his son-in-law, Henry VIII. of
   England, acting in the Holy League against Louis XII., which
   Ferdinand now joined (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), had sent
   against Guienne. With this aid he took possession of Upper
   Navarre. "In the following year, he effected at Orthès a
   year's truce with Louis XII. (April 1st 1513), by which Louis
   sacrificed his ally, the King of Navarre, and afterwards, by
   renewing the truce, allowed Ferdinand permanently to settle
   himself in his new conquest. The States of Navarre had
   previously taken the oath of allegiance to Ferdinand as their
   King, and on the 15th of June 1515, Navarre was incorporated
   into the kingdom of Castile by the solemn act of the Cortès.
   The dominions of John d'Albret and Catherine were now reduced
   to the little territory of Bearn, but they still retained the
   title of sovereigns of Navarre." Six years later, in 1521, the
   French invaded Navarre and overran the whole kingdom.
   "Pampeluna alone, animated by the courage of Ignatius Loyola,
   made a short resistance. To this siege, the world owes the
   Order of the Jesuits. Loyola, whose leg had been shattered by
   a cannon ball, found consolation and amusement during his
   convalescence in reading the lives of the saints, and was thus
   thrown into that state of fanatical exaltation which led him
   to devote his future life to the service of the Papacy."
   Attempting to extend their invasion beyond Navarre, the French
   were defeated at Esquiros and driven back, losing the whole of
   their conquests.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 1, chapters 4 and 7,
      and book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapters 2 and 23 (volumes 1 and 3)._

NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.
   The kingdom remaining on the French side of the Pyrenees.
   Jeanne d'Albret's Bourbon marriage and the issue of it.
   Establishment of Protestantism in Béarn.

   Besides the Spanish province which Ferdinand the Catholic
   appropriated and joined to Castile, and which gave its name to
   the Kingdom of Navarre, "that kingdom embraced a large tract
   of country lying on the French side of the Pyrenees, including
   the principality of Béarn and the counties of Foix, Armagnac,
   Albret, Bigorre, and Comminges. Catherine de Foix, the heiress
   of this kingdom, had in 1491 carried it by marriage into the
   house of D'Albret. Henry, the second king of Navarre belonging
   to this house, was in 1528 united to Marguerite d'Angoulême,
   the favourite and devoted sister of Francis I. of France.
   Pampeluna, the ancient capital of their kingdom, being in the
   hands of the King of Spain, Henry and Marguerite held their
   Court at Nérac, the chief town of the duchy belonging to the
   family of D'Albret. It was at Nérac that Marguerite, herself
   more than half a Huguenot, opened an asylum to her persecuted
   fellow-countrymen [see PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535]. Farel,
   Calvin, Beza sought temporary refuge and found glad welcome
   there, while to Lefevre, Clement Marot, and Gerard Roussel it
   became a second home. Marguerite died in 1549, leaving only
   one child, a daughter, who, in the event of her father having
   no issue by any second marriage, became heiress to the crown
   of Navarre. Born in 1528, Jeanne d'Albret had early and bitter
   experience of what heirship to such a crown involved. The
   Emperor Charles V. was believed to have early fixed his eye on
   her as a fit consort for Philip, his son and successor." To
   prevent this marriage, she was shut up for years, by her
   uncle, the French king, Francis I., in the gloomy castle of
   Plessis-les-Tours. When she was twelve years old he affianced
   her to the Duke of Cleves, notwithstanding her vigorous
   protests; but the alliance was subsequently broken off. "The
   next hand offered to Jeanne, and which she accepted, was that
   of Antoine, elder brother of the Prince of Condé, and head of
   the Bourbon family. They were married in 1548, a year after
   the death of Francis I., and a year before that of his sister
   Marguerite, Jeanne's mother. The marriage was an unfortunate
   one. Ambitious, yet weak and vain; frivolous and vacillating,
   yet headstrong and impetuous, faithless to his wife, faithless
   to his principles, faithless to his party, Antoine became the
   butt and victim of the policy of the Court. But though
   unfortunate in so many respects, this marriage gave to France,
   if not the greatest, the most fortunate, the most popular, the
   most beloved of all her monarchs"—namely, Henry IV.—Henry of
   Navarre—the first of the Bourbon dynasty of French kings.
{2245}
   "Antoine of Navarre died at the siege of Rouen in 1562. The
   first use that the Queen made of the increased measure of
   freedom she thus acquired was to publish an edict establishing
   the Protestant and interdicting the exercise of the Roman
   Catholic worship in Béarn. So bold an act by so weak a
   sovereign—by one whose political position was so perilous and
   insecure—drew down upon her the instant and severe
   displeasure of the Pope," who issued against her a Bull of
   excommunication, in October, 1563, and assumed the right to
   dispose of her kingdom. This assumption was more than the
   French Court could permit. "The Pope had to give way, and the
   Bull was expunged from the ecclesiastical ordinances of the
   Pontificate."

      _W. Hanna,
      The Wars of the Huguenots,
      chapter 4._

NAVARRE: A. D. 1568-1569.
   The queen joins the Huguenots in France, with Prince Henry.
   Invasion by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Protestant intolerance.
   Enforcement of Catholic rights.
   The kingdom incorporated and absorbed in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1876.
   Disappearance of the last municipal and provincial
   privileges of the old kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.

   ----------NAVARRE: End--------

NAVE.
NAVIO.

      See CARAVELS.

   ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: Start--------

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.
   The first English Act.

   "After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English
   Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge
   in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements;
   so that the white population of these dependencies was in
   general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might
   be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of
   the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet.
   Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as
   governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland,
   and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these
   circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the
   view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the
   Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the
   carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed
   their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise
   either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should
   be imported directly from the place of its growth or
   manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England,
   Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built
   ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation
   subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least
   three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further
   enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or
   manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into
   Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as
   were the real property of the people of the country or place
   in which the goods were produced, or from which they could
   only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which
   was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our
   own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the
   palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of
   England, we shall only at present observe that one of its
   first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which
   broke out the year after it was passed."

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      chapter 7 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _Adam Smith,
      Wealth of Nations,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy,
      chapter 29._

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.
   Effect upon the American colonies,
   and their relation to Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
   Complete repeal of the British restrictive Acts.

   "The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward
   [in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session
   of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The
   stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly
   mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;
   but the modifications thus introduced were of slight
   importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of
   the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United
   States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those
   states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in
   the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important
   changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to
   reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,
   Africa, and America might be imported from places out of
   Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in
   foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships
   were the ships of the country of which the goods were the
   produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were
   the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the
   act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.
   Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its
   possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in
   British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were
   produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some
   stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a
   vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These
   restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great
   founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that
   the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect
   freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their
   continuance on the ground that defence is much more important
   than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that
   these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of
   monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been
   maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also
   to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the
   defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February
   in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of
   trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the
   following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the
   restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea
   to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions
   abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of
   the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by
   her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend
   the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'
{2246}
   A long debate took place on the question of the second reading
   of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.
   Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,
   which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord
   Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the
   strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial
   measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of
   10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the
   supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;
   but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most
   conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed
   without farther opposition."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. J. Kelley,
      The Question of Ships,
      chapter 4._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

   ----------NAVIGATION LAWS: End----------

NAWAB-VIZIER,
NEWAB-WU-ZEER, of Oude.

      See OUDE; also NABOB.

   ----------NAXOS: Start--------

NAXOS: B. C. 490.
   Destruction by the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

NAXOS: B. C. 466.
   Revolt from the Delian Confederacy.
   Subjugation by Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

NAXOS: B. C. 376.
   Battle between the Spartans and Athenians.

   A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos,
   between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian
   fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or
   captured. "This was the first great victory … which the
   Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 77._

NAXOS: A. D. 1204-1567.
   The mediæval dukedom.

   "In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the
   conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the
   Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had
   formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division
   of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading
   barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the
   Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the
   principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by
   purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted,
   or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo,
   however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as
   one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was
   invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the
   Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise
   footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His
   conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a
   baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought
   his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to
   Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by
   their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree,
   vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of
   Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the
   close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the
   Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the
   protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was
   reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty
   years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the
   sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could
   not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 10, sections 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      chapter 3._

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Islands of the Aegean,
      chapter 4._

   ----------NAXOS: End----------

NAZARETH, Battle of (1799).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

NEANDERTHAL MAN.

   The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect
   skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the
   Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most
   primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      page 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Dawkins,
      Cave Hunting,
      page 240._

NEAPOLIS, Schools of.

   In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern
   Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its
   society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed
   among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended
   in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

   "Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient
   Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across
   the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later
   settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not
   founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian
   expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against
   the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also
   may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of
   Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that
   time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities
   have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of
   all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except
   the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by
   the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second
   Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The
   ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the
   modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast
   is now considerably advanced. People have sought for
   Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. …
   I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my
   friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his
   early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick
   and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took
   with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount
   Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 40 (volume 1)._

   "Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the
   Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples.
   In after years another city sprung up a little to the south,
   whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or
   Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The
   latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was
   taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second
   Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with
   them and lived.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 21 (volume 1)._

{2247}

NEAPOLIS (Syracuse).

      See TEMENITES.

NEARDA.

   See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.

   ----------NEBRASKA: Start--------

NEBRASKA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.
   Territorial organization.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1867.
   Admission to the Union.

   Nebraska was organized as a State and admitted
   to the Union in 1867.

   ----------NEBRASKA: End--------

NECKER, Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788, to 1789 (JUNE).

NECTANSMERE, Battle of (A. D. 685).

      See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

NEERWINDEN,
LANDEN,
   Battle of (1693).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY)

   Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

NEGRITO.

   "The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by
   the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of
   Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will
   be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman
   Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."

      _A. H. Keane,
      Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races
      (appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),
      section 4._

NEGRO, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NEGRO PLOT, Imagined in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

      See SLAVERY: NEGRO.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1867 (JANUARY), and (MARCH); and 1868-1870.

NEGRO TROOPS, in the American Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

   ----------NEGROPONT: Start--------

NEGROPONT:
   The Name.

   The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the
   name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo,
   a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the
   ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of
   the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by
   the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of
   Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."

      _W. Smith,
      Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography._

NEGROPONT: A. D. 1470.
   Capture and Massacre by the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

   ----------NEGROPONT: End--------

NEGUS, OR NEGOOS, The.

   See ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES.

NEHAVEND, Battle of.

   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

NELSON'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEMEDIANS, The.

   It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was
   settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of
   descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they
   and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians
   were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers,
   known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a
   fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir
   Bolgs.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2._

NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.

   "The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were
   celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons
   of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis,
   under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian
   isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the
   Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity,
   though the form in which they were finally established was of
   late institution; and it is highly probable that they were
   really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which
   had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 10._

NEMETACUM.

   Modern Arras.

      See BELGÆ.

NEMETES, The.

      See VANGIONES.

NEMI, Priest of.

      See ARICIAN GROVE.

NEMOURS, Treaty and Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

NEODAMODES.

   Enfranchised helots, in ancient Sparta.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 73._

NEOLITHIC PERIOD.

      See STONE AGE.

NEOPLATONICS, The.

   "There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another
   school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a
   reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as
   an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school
   of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and
   which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and
   Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in
   many respects the best production of paganism, now in its
   final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged
   its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.
   Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated
   and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual
   support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics
   endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of
   philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and
   Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental
   learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute
   truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of
   eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,
   which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at
   the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They
   taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men
   offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or
   Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of
   all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the
   different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,
   countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,
   it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and
   customs of the ancients.'
{2248}
   It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were
   essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive
   character of which, and tendency to destroy all other
   religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and
   as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which
   Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck
   Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves
   especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to
   maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They
   in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its
   worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their
   ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,
   to establish which was the object which they had proposed to
   themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved
   the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive
   tradition, and purified them from recent errors and
   deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines
   of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by
   the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the
   sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of
   Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two
   of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.
   It is well known that they received instructions from
   Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists
   not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The
   Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not
   have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
   had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor
   Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,
   approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is
   the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and
   grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which
   teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the
   senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it
   is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled
   pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform
   polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning
   the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,
   and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of
   religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and
   rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations
   with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to
   abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the
   slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But
   at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of
   the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of
   sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of
   invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united
   to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires
   of men."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 1, pages 70-73._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Ueberweg,
      History of Philosophy,
      sections 66-70 (volume 1)._

      _C. Kingsley,
      Alexandria and Her Schools._

NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NEPHTHALITES, The.

      See HUNS, THE WHITE.

NÉRAC, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

NERESHEIM, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

NERIUM, Headland of.

      The ancient name of Cape Finisterre,

NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.

NERONIA.

   Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion
   and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.

NERVII, The.

   A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which
   occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt
   (French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of
   Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior
   to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2)._

   The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.

      See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.

NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

   The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the
   fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having
   been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over
   the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century
   by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet
   profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of
   one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature
   and the human nature which they believed to be united in
   Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to
   confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable
   leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of
   Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the
   other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius
   gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing
   tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the
   Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who
   believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear
   like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother
   can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in
   that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with
   Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril
   led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia
   and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout
   the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and
   recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned
   Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a
   minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,
   which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril
   and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved
   both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the
   Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.
   Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another
   stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the
   Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature
   of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the
   doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired
   somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter
   tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its
   chief promulgator.
{2249}
   It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second
   Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on
   account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its
   proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,
   in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,
   at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which
   laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the
   existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless
   condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success
   only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as
   the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the
   religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council
   of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's
   mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious
   self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered
   in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty
   years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce
   revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the
   imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all
   turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in
   the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain
   attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical
   dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which
   experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the
   strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.
   … It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting
   opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to
   either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian
   amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number
   and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,
   Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of
   his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more
   fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in
   insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such
   is the language of the times—gave place to these more
   maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the
   Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death
   of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.
   518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope
   Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,
   followed generally the emperor's example in taking the
   orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.
   Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were
   driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both
   survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 2, chapters 3-4,
      book 3, chapter 1, and 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

      _J. Alzog,
      Universal Church History, 2d epoch,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;
      and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

NESTORIANS, The.

   "Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was
   rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND
   MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of
   Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at
   first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as
   the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay
   open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in
   this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan
   church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a
   flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from
   Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the
   patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and
   discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It
   is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members
   lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was
   especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous
   seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,
   Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to
   489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to
   the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He
   persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his
   own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the
   Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that
   time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity
   tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw
   off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of
   Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was
   again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to
   Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to
   be an important centre of theological learning, and especially
   of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians
   had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian
   Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,
   the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar
   and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from
   Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad
   Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the
   inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the
   genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,
   describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country
   from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that
   monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during
   the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to
   that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were
   subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the
   prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the
   terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.
   Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who
   almost exterminated them. Within the present century their
   diminished numbers have been still further thinned by
   frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters
   now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of
   Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the
   boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward
   of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores
   of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and
   others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …
   Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now
   remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast
   of India."

      _H. F. Tozer,
      The Church and the Eastern Empire,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47._

NETAD, Battle of.

      See HUNS: A. D. 453.

{2250}

   ----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------

NETHERLANDS.
   The Land.

   "The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from
   the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the
   countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small
   triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is
   divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two
   nearly equal portions. … Geographically and
   ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to
   Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian
   island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned
   by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the
   land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part
   of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the
   Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes
   and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A
   delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by
   nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests
   were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying
   partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,
   subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent
   and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a
   half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt
   upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,
   above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same
   race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into
   subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,
   to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and
   to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the
   world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A
   region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both
   domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for
   generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was
   unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the
   still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the
   Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of
   woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of
   the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes
   cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of
   thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a
   breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves
   of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.
   The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended
   along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast
   Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the
   country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the
   Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague
   immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no
   German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even
   heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of
   Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,
   and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty
   rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about
   by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,
   or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the
   all-accomplished Roman."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 1._

NETHERLANDS:
   The early inhabitants.

      See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.
   Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

      See BATAVIANS.

NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.
   Settlement and domination of the Franks.

      See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.
   Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.
   The partitioning.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.
   The Flemish towns and counts.

      See FLANDERS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.
   The early Counts of Holland.

   "It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]
   presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters
   patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to
   be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through
   both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's
   descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of
   Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of
   the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of
   unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.
   This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as
   sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious
   exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile
   or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and
   bloodier encounters than might have established an empire
   under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The
   countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.
   Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus
   joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half
   century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died
   childless in 1355 [1345?]."

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, sections 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.
   Relations with the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.
   The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

   "On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue
   in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became
   Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her
   husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she
   had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,
   instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the
   sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered
   to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the
   necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them
   opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of
   their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these
   live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And
   how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though
   insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too
   strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from
   these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in
   after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din
   and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles
   adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,
   among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,
   supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].
{2251}
   The community was divided into parties rather than into
   classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary
   cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of
   the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws
   were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and
   populous town was able to afford. The majority of the
   cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of
   them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the
   landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to
   antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of
   them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In
   Friezland the two factions were designated by the
   recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and
   'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict
   which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the
   Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were
   banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings
   razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in
   England, where she remained until a short time previous to her
   death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.
   as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly
   characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered
   factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter
   half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a
   national view the government was helpless and inefficient,
   entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,
   and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and
   pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of
   the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their
   full maturity."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.
   Commercial and industrial superiority.
   Advance in learning and art.

   "What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,
   and especially with England … must have been presented by
   the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are
   3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One
   of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and
   Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a
   fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to
   display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.
   In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone
   furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges
   are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of
   the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders
   to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests
   being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their
   sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and
   placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at
   the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention
   to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The
   burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the
   habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …
   Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,
   says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the
   frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when
   they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the
   Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed
   every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all
   such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or
   17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a
   hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come
   comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop
   under very different conditions. In the course of time even
   Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of
   Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to
   the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and
   destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished
   on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy
   to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain
   among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event
   fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere
   material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.
   The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants
   than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained
   substantial advantages from the close connection. The new
   commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while
   Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and
   more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all
   quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.
   Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its
   cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, &c.,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.
   The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

   In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,
   died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or
   Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several
   states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's
   sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the
   countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's
   weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the
   second son of the king of France, who became presently
   thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.
   John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and
   the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,
   was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of
   an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop
   of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.
   [of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a
   reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage
   between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was
   then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she
   was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first
   cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of
   Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only
   sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp
   quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was
   violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing
   himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke
   of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of
   quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one
   morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had
   long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty
   horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to
   England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a
   distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate
   companion of the Queen. …
{2252}
   She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation
   from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a
   dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and
   'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect
   due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the
   shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest
   brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less
   patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."
   Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the
   marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but
   Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to
   his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the
   Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be
   legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to
   a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but
   uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding
   these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive
   Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the
   Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and
   on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they
   preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon
   afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed
   the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,
   but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime
   invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy
   assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed
   between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between
   Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest
   persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester
   and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the
   possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.
   Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving
   Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false
   and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy
   lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself
   powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent
   to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.
   Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and
   revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.
   "The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that
   Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to
   battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to
   terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her
   fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry
   without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married
   a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he
   was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she
   yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension
   until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife
   and dissension as any woman of her time."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      series 2, chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. de Monstrelet,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234>,
      book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49._

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 1, chapters 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.
   The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

   "Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and
   Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip
   the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of
   the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had
   succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother
   Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of
   Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of
   the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native
   prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his
   lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the
   next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.
   D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of
   Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager
   of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in
   succession, since the right extended to females, Philip
   prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the
   true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of
   Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The
   accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government
   of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the
   Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.
   Revolt of Ghent.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.
   The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.
   Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.

      See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
   The severance from Burgundy.
   Accession of the Duchess Mary.
   The grant of the "Great Privilege."

   On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy
   came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt
   and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained
   thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further
   intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland
   domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.
   But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the
   sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole
   heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper
   terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to
   whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before
   his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of
   the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the
   enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war
   with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in
   the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the
   states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his
   father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of
   government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until
   then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable
   opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and
   the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a
   preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They
   insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they
   were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances
   were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to
   all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand
   [was] commonly called the Great Charter."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note._

{2253}

   "The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the
   states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the
   'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of
   Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and
   indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It
   was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an
   acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a
   revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those
   interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess
   shall not marry without consent of the estates of her
   provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on
   natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall
   be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is
   re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal
   from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original
   jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the
   provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are
   guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond
   the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all
   the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and
   at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed
   but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess
   nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or
   defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be
   illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute
   to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the
   Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the
   duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges
   of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from
   Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value
   raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are
   not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have
   not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the
   estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for
   the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably
   liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was
   there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. S. Costello,
      Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
      chapters 28-30._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.
   The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

   "Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,
   and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her
   marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to
   her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had
   lost.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

   Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest
   for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord
   of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were
   betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the
   match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin
   being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of
   England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of
   Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who
   is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice
   presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards
   King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect
   "came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants
   went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have
   been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father
   was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his
   time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about
   700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was
   consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no
   great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,
   instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him
   with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a
   condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the
   house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house
   of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that
   had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose
   palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose
   dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and
   splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;
   boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

      _Philip de Commines,
      Memoirs,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. S. Costello,
      Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
      chapter 31._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.
   Maximilian and the Flemings.
   The end of the Hook party in Holland.

   "According to the terms of the marriage treaty between
   Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to
   the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death
   of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only
   four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of
   himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector
   of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and
   Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip
   at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to
   obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their
   country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent
   and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector
   of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered
   by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him
   entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of
   Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later
   (1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King
   of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to
   speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings
   rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor
   accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.
   The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him
   personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance
   for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing
   to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young
   Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of
   the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian
   side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his
   endeavors to preserve peace with France.
{2254}
   On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,
   his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the
   frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very
   honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of
   these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he
   had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought
   into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the
   undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving
   his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions
   in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the
   "Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In
   neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents
   successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when
   the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace
   on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In
   Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with
   fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily
   altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the
   name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This
   insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German
   troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was
   the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders
   against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.
   … The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted
   so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the
   county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a
   small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,
   Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian
   having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter
   surrendered and the former was installed in the government of
   the Netherlands.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
   Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.
   Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.
   The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and
   their States-General.

   "In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the
   Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the
   privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,
   Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great
   Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,
   Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from
   it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the
   Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the
   House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them
   at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in
   1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In
   1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,
   Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of
   Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander
   VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new
   world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast
   inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and
   his.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

   Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's
   sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].

   … The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now
   running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the
   hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish
   kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed
   into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his
   father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip
   the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked
   by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years
   afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19
   years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each
   other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning
   between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were
   detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were
   equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during
   his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This
   did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish
   subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to
   his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The
   Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection
   of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the
   industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were
   increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.
   They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order
   to carry out the operations which his necessities or his
   policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily
   believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as
   Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred
   which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western
   Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the
   Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two
   centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so
   much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …
   Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,
   was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,
   the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had
   two industries which saved them from the losses which affected
   the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the
   world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The
   other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the
   Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Story of Holland,
      chapters 5-6._

   The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the
   Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of
   Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven
   counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,
   Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of
   Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the
   margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which
   adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was
   spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other
   provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,
   prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the
   northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and
   customs than in language. Each province was an independent
   state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty
   to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in
   most other parts of Europe. …
{2255}
   The only institutions which supplied any links of union among
   the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly
   of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal
   established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over
   them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative
   authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely
   convened. … The members of the States-General were not
   representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or
   ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces
   had also their own States."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, pages 221-222._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.
   Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
   The Reformation in the Provinces.
   The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.
   The Edict of 1550.
   The Planting of the Inquisition.

   "The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their
   ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,
   and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for
   their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common
   laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of
   Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the
   interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among
   the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,
   various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the
   doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They
   were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose
   commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this
   plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and
   Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the
   country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by
   numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The
   contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided
   abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor
   did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to
   quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into
   the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by
   the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic
   provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the
   whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious
   for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of
   Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished
   professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from
   Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments
   or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the
   Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two
   Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …
   The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The
   Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of
   persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,
   the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently
   disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.
   Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where
   young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among
   them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,
   such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,
   were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext
   for violent measures of repression against all who departed
   from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,
   in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in
   which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as
   well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited
   great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme
   aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave
   Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;
   and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria
   interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.
   Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not
   quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a
   protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which
   were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.
   'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of
   the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more
   and more, all men began to be convinced that they were
   destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much
   persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of
   Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so
   great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less
   100,000, the number given by Grotius."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 9._

   "His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the
   Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the
   diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated
   cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the
   absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles
   introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side
   with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which
   constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of
   Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned,
   strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his
   edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished
   authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than
   50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of
   victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at
   30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and
   five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. …
   'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy,
   keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or
   other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John
   Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or
   other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break,
   or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized
   saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal
   gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents
   of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form
   conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare.
   … Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or
   dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly,
   especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read,
   teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly
   studied theology and been approved by some renowned
   university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to
   entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics.
   … Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed,
   to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive,
   if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in
   them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in
   both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"

   The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to
   them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same
   time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for
   pardon in favor of such heretics.

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 1, chapter 1,
      and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,
      book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7)._

{2265}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1539-1540.
   The revolt and enslavement of Ghent.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.
   Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of
   his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.

   In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the
   Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see
   GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will
   almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he
   chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the
   Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was
   declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession
   settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the
   German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain
   contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial
   Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured
   the personal union of these territories with his house, and
   made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the
   same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the
   empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the
   house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no
   advantage to the empire."

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapter 16._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
   The Abdication of Charles V.
   Accession of Philip II.
   His sworn promises.

   "In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by
   the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his
   vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a
   cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for
   the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the
   Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the
   deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at
   Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the
   mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland;
   the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now
   enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his
   installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the
   promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no
   office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given
   to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which
   Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the
   next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to
   his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on
   the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to
   join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered
   the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then
   proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he
   lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21,
   1558.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stirling,
      Cloister Life of Charles V._

      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties,
      chapter 10._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.
   Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.
   His malignity.
   His perfidy.
   His evil and plotting industry.

   "Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish
   superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was
   formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern
   tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of
   men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his
   greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one
   enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were
   his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal
   which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of
   cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the
   strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. …
   Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He
   wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh
   obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue
   were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most
   deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent
   success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with
   which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now
   began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the
   national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only
   once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign
   power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was
   calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices].
   The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The
   expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of
   rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour
   offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have
   conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which
   alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the
   power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's
   dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. …
   Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more
   particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration
   for a few points of political interest and individual
   privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the
   edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier
   conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive
   that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of
   making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone
   was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He
   succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable
   subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during
   a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards
   his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to
   Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious
   but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in
   dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of
   Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the
   frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their
   employments the functionaries already in place, he took care
   to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the
   Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the
   more surely into the snare, he announced his intended
   departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the
   period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly
   composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility.
{2257}
   He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the
   illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to
   this provisional government the right of levying taxes during
   the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on
   the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to
   procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had
   gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had
   consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands
   of the new administration for the period of the king's
   absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and
   flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable
   despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted
   [including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see
   above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the
   lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the
   dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability
   and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy,
   these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's
   project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics
   by others of his own choice [through a creation of new
   bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual
   meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret
   consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of
   these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken
   up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To
   complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip
   convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month
   of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of
   Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's
   favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his
   docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the
   name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was
   one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of
   Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V.,
   and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over
   the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the
   sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain
   requests for money on the part of the latter. "But
   notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery
   of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man
   [William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or
   governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through
   all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he
   privately warned some members of the states of the coming
   danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust.
   They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed
   out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened.
   The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and
   general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and
   an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes,
   withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official
   employments to any but natives of the country. The object of
   this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born
   in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In
   the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out,
   'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a
   Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed
   his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner
   learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the
   foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand,
   with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a
   discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559,
   he sailed for Spain.

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 7._

   "Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and
   suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over
   the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only
   the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. …
   There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and
   dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series
   of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or
   of a whole population, and something still more awful in the
   icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the
   accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with
   which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence
   of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in
   distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which,
   Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or
   feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."

      _C. Gayarre,
      Philip II. of Spain,
      chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.
   The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,
   and the shadow of the Inquisition.
   The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."

   "The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops
   there. The king had pledged his word … that they should
   leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet
   that period had long since passed, and no preparations were
   made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose
   higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence
   of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No
   invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed
   at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have
   pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on
   which he could rely, admitted that the project was
   impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and
   that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'
   … The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the
   commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer
   hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet
   Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate
   letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,
   it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw
   that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.
   … The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for
   Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer
   they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They
   soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;
   and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the
   king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,
   in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country
   under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this
   extremity.
{2258}
   In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by
   Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the
   intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it
   was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements
   had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four
   already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had
   been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till
   1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of
   the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before
   that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general
   sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an
   attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system
   which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their
   office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and
   these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the
   royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of
   a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into
   the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing
   the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the
   place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their
   election to the religious houses over which they presided. The
   new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination
   from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own
   independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who
   would naturally be subservient to the interests of the
   monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner
   in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was
   to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by
   appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance
   of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the
   Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection
   of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many
   other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of
   the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the
   provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,
   nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were
   expedited by Pius IV."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new
   bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders
   appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were
   called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish,
   because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already
   stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of
   his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could
   accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549,
   and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of
   Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde
   inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive
   barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and
   foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the
   land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old
   has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by
   consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the
   cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his
   subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally,
   except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the
   province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with
   the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no
   foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince,
   by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the
   inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are
   discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free,
   independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves
   exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading
   features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of
   that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the
   Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to
   give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a
   birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the
   other provinces ought to have been as effective against the
   arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the
   constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor,
   financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be
   administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates.
   The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should
   the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound
   to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland
   charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit
   of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces
   possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. E. Crowe,
      Cardinal Granvelle
      (Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.
   Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny
   and persecution of Philip.
   The signing of the Compromise.
   The League of the Gueux.

   William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole
   country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly
   alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and
   obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers
   endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first
   unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and
   persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before
   them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and
   Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an
   express order from the king forbade the convocation of the
   states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus
   rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the
   deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful
   confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of
   Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.
   … Those who composed this confederacy against the minister
   were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is
   doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of
   Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct
   and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,
   clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in
   thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with
   whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the
   national traditions still preserve the sacred title of
   'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the
   parent but the political creator of the country, was at this
   period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the
   popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing
   off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.
{2259}
   An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided
   him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not
   disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.
   The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;
   the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle
   had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king
   had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from
   the departure of the unpopular minister. The public
   fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;
   and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in
   the council and over the government. … It was resolved to
   dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the
   views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the
   council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the
   month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound
   hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent
   him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count
   returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of
   which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every
   word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly
   concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be
   inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not
   satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,
   Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means
   decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as
   burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …
   Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;
   and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the
   government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers
   the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at
   length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning
   of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their
   familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,
   carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but
   partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every
   district and town became the scene of frightful executions or
   tumultuous resistance."

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 7._

   In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at
   Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in
   which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of
   Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and
   Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting
   held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their
   views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand
   of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe
   denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and
   iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one
   another against any attack that might be made upon them; and
   declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw
   off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two
   months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons,
   including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles
   could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of
   Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period
   Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the
   leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The
   latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the
   spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to
   the Regent which he had himself revised."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it
   form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the
   confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled;
   intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with
   their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number
   happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of
   Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to
   turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not
   be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very
   name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most
   perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which,
   while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in
   humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as
   petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this
   name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with
   a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in
   the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to
   carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels,
   swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by
   mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his
   whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden
   bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same
   kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of
   the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or
   suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name
   'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by
   all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the
   king."

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1)._

      _F. von Raumer,
      History of the 16th and 17th Centuries
      illustrated by original documents,
      letter 16 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.
   Field preaching under arms.
   The riots of the Image-breakers.
   Philip's schemes of revenge.
   Discouragement and retirement of Orange.
   Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.

   "While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a
   'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics
   should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition
   should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a
   movement broke out among the people which mocked at all
   Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands
   of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in
   large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical
   preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to
   hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother
   tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails,
   and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a
   camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000
   assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children
   within.
{2260}
   After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the
   excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according
   to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of
   them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the
   assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was
   ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day
   after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack
   the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful
   situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts
   were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless
   foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had
   neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his
   usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of
   powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal
   excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified
   preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July
   there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just
   persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open
   country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great
   outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great
   procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic
   clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance
   of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was
   invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the
   images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This
   demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration
   of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient
   faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay,
   Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for
   neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere,
   though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still,
   these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics,
   but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the
   seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held
   sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to
   flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her
   to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of
   August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and
   the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of
   the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and
   the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept
   their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the
   first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in
   Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace.
   Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who
   knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders,
   Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier;
   he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish
   executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the
   bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been
   come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had
   determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather
   a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was
   assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never
   would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August,
   and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the
   King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to
   be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had
   forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was
   one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made
   only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was
   resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that
   he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means
   of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he
   understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while
   the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were
   compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to
   keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete,
   and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people.
   He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation
   before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape
   Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in
   armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army.
   But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with
   the Government which was more than ever determined on his
   destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566,
   when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten,
   as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. …
   Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of
   the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return
   in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a
   weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone,
   Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of
   the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was
   not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous
   inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most
   dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend
   themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery,
   Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres,
   exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at
   Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that
   Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an
   unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the
   Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all
   Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the
   Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government.,
   The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels
   at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at
   resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for
   lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of
   fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to
   become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he
   renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt
   to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the
   ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for
   better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed
   to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he
   was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly
   called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way
   to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an
   army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to
   make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as
   such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and
   imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of
   terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of
   the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the
   5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square
   at Brussels.

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 22-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 2, chapters 6-10,
      and part 3, chapters 1-2._

      _F. Schiller,
      History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,
      books 3-4._

{2261}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.
   The Council of Blood.

   "In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which
   the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and
   Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new
   court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent
   period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly
   created with the least possible delay. It was called the
   Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name,
   by which it will be forever known in history, of the
   Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every
   court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the
   supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take
   cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late
   troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally
   disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being
   occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an
   irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped
   by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but
   the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial
   Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble
   individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is
   unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus
   committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the
   very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal
   proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end.
   … So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its
   work, that in less than three months from the time of its
   erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary
   proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most
   virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then
   manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread
   career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus
   established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of
   the country, had not been provided with even a nominal
   authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no
   letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva
   thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his
   own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members
   composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal
   club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the
   other members were all appointed by himself. Of these
   subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject,
   however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest
   of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in
   any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or
   executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which
   the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as
   to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of
   responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for
   himself the final decision upon all causes which should come
   before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with
   grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have
   determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the
   first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily
   deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn
   for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that
   affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the
   laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of
   the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance
   to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and
   in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it
   must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the
   appointments which he made to the office of councillors. …
   No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and
   Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several
   presidents and councillors of the different provincial
   tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men
   of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only
   members who could vote, while their decisions, as already
   stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man
   without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his
   superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No
   better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to
   which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his
   opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating
   pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different
   subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to
   prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary.
   Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred
   men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council,
   and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If
   the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man
   or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it,
   and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men,
   within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it
   was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were
   overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the
   method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors
   were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The
   register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the
   Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children
   thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained
   the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an
   individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial
   it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious
   to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on
   the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were
   condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from
   different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of
   Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and
   so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the
   death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but
   was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the
   survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former
   selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of
   the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva,
   seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest
   had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been
   accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in
   prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail,
   flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had
   alighted at every fireside.
{2262}
   The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was
   hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The
   scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been
   sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely
   inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and
   stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the
   fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases,
   strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore
   on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the
   Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the
   tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been
   depopulated."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.
   Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.
   The whole population condemned.

   "Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was
   promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation
   of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads
   were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at
   a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of
   all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same
   fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the
   Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands
   to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few
   persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of
   the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the
   Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant
   execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is
   probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed.
   Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were
   sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well
   known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls
   of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it
   was intended should be enforced, the horror which they
   produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of
   Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale
   plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times
   upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused
   for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be
   fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were
   condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the
   scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the
   authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions
   certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest
   positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in
   a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of
   executions which were to take place immediately after the
   expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen,
   convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other
   crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his
   hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But
   although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely
   a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for
   dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher.
   To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the
   frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders
   by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was
   invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron
   ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and
   inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the
   tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course
   effectually precluded all possibility of speech."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.
   The arming of Revolt and beginning of War
   by the Prince of Orange.
   Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.
   Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.

   "So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the
   beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six
   months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman
   Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the
   subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the
   Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an
   answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its
   defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope
   from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had
   done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and
   almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a
   decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants
   of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of
   a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter
   despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of
   Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now
   residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's
   threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to
   the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of
   Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved
   that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his
   own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his
   exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying
   troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a
   document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which
   stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most
   convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the
   field at the head of a small force, composed of French
   Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. …
   Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for
   40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural
   disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous
   countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details …
   would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles
   were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau,
   the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the
   Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on
   the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion]
   on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of
   Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply
   imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the
   disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that
   more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field,
   and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have
   delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and
   escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of
   his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva
   rarely fought a battle in the open field.
{2263}
   He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by
   defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring
   him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual
   consequences of such tactics, and believing that the
   protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his
   sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources;
   while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted
   by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly
   prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it
   involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when
   Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the
   Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was,
   persecution was more to his taste than even victory.
   Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce
   every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of
   the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he
   gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of
   which the history of no other general in the world affords a
   similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself
   enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or
   to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of
   rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of
   slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express
   direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those
   of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in
   meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden
   with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into
   an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on
   it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said,
   to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not
   quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the
   logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to
   supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which
   injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the
   Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all
   commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England;
   … but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the
   English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon
   himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the
   States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every
   description of property, on every transfer of property, and
   even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten
   per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in
   the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so
   entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the
   disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves
   supported by that body, even those Provinces which had
   complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he
   was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum
   than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes,
   and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly
   disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his
   post."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      Three Centuries of Modern History,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2)._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.
   The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.
   Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the
   name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.
   The Provisional Government organized.

   In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly
   relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the
   rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had
   styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports,
   where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies.
   The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about,
   and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately
   driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of
   these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of
   Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly.
   Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing,
   on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled
   the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by
   Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the
   year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered
   still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its
   close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal
   arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the
   Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out
   the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected
   here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and
   burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside
   and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one
   drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property.
   By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important
   cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in
   whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was
   accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere.
   With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its
   chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein,
   Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam,
   Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all
   ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful
   stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand
   alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City
   after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht,
   all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later,
   some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with
   resistance by the functionaries of government, some by
   amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and
   formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a
   long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first
   struggling elements of a new and a better world began to
   appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the
   cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be
   retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of
   republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient
   Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous
   life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to
   stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe,
   a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden,
   Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not
   often illustrated human annals, still breathe as
   trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as
   Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis.
{2264}
   A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed
   cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath
   of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange
   as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva,
   the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's
   freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows,
   orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and
   truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen.
   He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing
   him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus,
   to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of
   the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which
   the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon
   this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the
   revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an
   iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation
   oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but
   there was a pretence and a determination to worship God
   according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political
   'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood
   Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes
   or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical
   liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their
   shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of
   William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was
   displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his
   lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was
   preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the
   Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince
   was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing
   funds."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and
   its recovery by the Spaniards.
   Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.
   The siege and capture of Haarlem.

   "While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and
   troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His
   prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant
   brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. …
   This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He
   at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon
   after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor
   of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender
   his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another
   Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands
   of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he
   agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the
   states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million
   dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet
   at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to
   renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange,
   who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to
   secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While
   still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized
   Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish
   troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the
   Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince
   marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of
   the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and
   everything looked favorable for his success, when an
   unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king,
   Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the
   Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the
   provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange
   with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in
   Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the
   prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the
   neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a
   night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September
   11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate
   in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat.
   … Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his
   cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William
   had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him.
   As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero
   patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for
   liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September,
   to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes …
   to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms
   of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants
   alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The
   city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his
   troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to
   obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt
   pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command
   to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen,
   which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The
   massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange
   suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his
   brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in
   the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion
   rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland
   alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little
   city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but
   being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don
   Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and
   property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his
   soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was
   this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town
   hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was
   the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who
   butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously
   through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the
   houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and
   killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the
   king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all
   the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He
   ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the
   defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the
   city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved
   to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon
   resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for
   secretly negotiating with Alva. …
{2265}
   Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered
   soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the
   efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule.
   Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles
   distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the
   prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen
   surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December
   days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought
   into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The
   sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this
   work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly
   equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its
   extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about
   4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable
   women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic
   spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions
   by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow
   Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within
   and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who
   has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City
   Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for
   three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and
   children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls.
   They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to
   fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious
   Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all
   sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at
   their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught
   about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance,
   which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to
   take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don
   Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the
   ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried
   the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city
   at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and
   stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been
   secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them
   with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock,
   the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and
   sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards
   outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to
   their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two
   assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having
   been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine
   seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in
   fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic
   wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown
   him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for
   the possession of the lake, which was the only means of
   conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible
   hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival
   vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral
   Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the
   wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and
   rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats,
   rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather
   and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay
   the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were
   full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange
   were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form
   a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and
   infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don
   Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced
   them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy.
   This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of
   2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."

      _A. Young,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Watson,
      History of Philip II.,
      books 11-12._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
   Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.
   Displacement of Alva.
   Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.
   Siege and relief of Leyden.
   The flooding of the land.
   Founding of Leyden University.

   After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the
   Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28
   months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great
   difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to
   make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and
   with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to
   march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to
   Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head
   of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were
   1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it
   was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of
   men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less
   resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce
   onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform
   success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were
   never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was
   hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones
   and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But
   as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the
   besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they
   resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of
   cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having
   effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was
   soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel
   mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army
   would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather
   than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the
   blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people
   had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this
   time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval
   victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to
   whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at
   Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of
   occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the
   towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns,
   consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson,
   stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After
   several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close
   fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the
   afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during
   which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a
   third captured.
{2266}
   "The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being
   taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle,
   Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success
   delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent
   danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly
   useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a
   meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote
   of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of
   Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting
   them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the
   cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the
   provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their
   remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful
   effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or
   remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. …
   Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had
   involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his
   recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand
   commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva
   quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has
   become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During
   the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000
   persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides
   the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered
   cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an
   attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison
   in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years;
   but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose
   was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels.
   "The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it
   that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the
   principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the
   sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster
   which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of
   Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of
   Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the
   Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or
   Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of
   Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the
   Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di
   Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for
   some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring
   of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against
   Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had
   not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other
   provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the
   enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the
   knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to
   renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of
   Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no
   artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well
   aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient
   for three months, contented himself with closely investing it
   on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure
   effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland
   "decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and
   Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at
   Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers,
   overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland,
   would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very
   gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders.
   … The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and
   difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the
   continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed,
   it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing.
   A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the
   waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard
   no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to
   enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured.
   … 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths
   of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was
   esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months.
   … Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome,
   remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the
   north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the
   Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode
   triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour
   the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons
   with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October …
   Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory
   of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the
   inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a
   fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both:
   the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of
   October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a
   solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year,
   the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange
   in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapters 8-9 (volumes 1-2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2)._

      _W. T. Hewett,
      The University of Leiden
      (Harper's Magazine, March, 1881)._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 5, chapter 16._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
   Congress at Breda.
   Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.
   Death of Requesens.
   Mutiny of the Soldiery.
   The Spanish Fury.
   Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under
   the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.
   Arrival of Don John of Austria.

   "The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the
   reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept
   … the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which
   he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held
   at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were
   suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced
   to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the
   States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in
   matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed
   with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became
   very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of
   Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between
   Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from
   England had expired.
{2267}
   Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to
   solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain
   conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens
   sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended
   in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the
   power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the
   Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the
   Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering
   into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying
   circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest
   firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have
   contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its
   inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the
   country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought,
   however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though
   he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or
   despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who
   expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness,
   threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given
   Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the
   nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up.
   The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the
   members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip
   found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the
   administration, till a successor to Requesens could be
   appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was
   totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The
   Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all
   discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had
   beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants,
   till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had
   Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted
   as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering
   about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and
   plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they
   were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops.
   To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to
   the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived,
   and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by
   force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great
   slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters.
   Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and
   plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon
   Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and
   sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt,
   8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums
   in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated
   at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this
   sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The
   government was at this period conducted in the name of the
   States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young
   Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the
   Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered
   the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and
   seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage
   of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp,
   persuaded the provisional government to summon the
   States-General, although such a course was at direct variance
   with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the
   provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the
   southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange
   with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so
   long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent,
   sought his assistance in expelling them; which William
   consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should
   be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic
   provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and
   towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men
   from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who
   had valorously defended themselves for two months under the
   conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon,
   surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance
   was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the
   Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it
   was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose
   authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict
   of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the
   suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to
   summon the States-General of the northern and southern
   provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had
   received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the
   toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland
   and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar
   character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent,
   all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was
   recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part
   of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an
   'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the
   vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the
   government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not
   have been effected, by which an almost independent
   commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been
   puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at
   length, of his brother Don John of Austria [a natural son of
   Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The
   state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not
   with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative
   of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or
   conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had
   not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he
   entered its capital a few days before the publication of the
   treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in
   the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of
   Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to
   negociate with the provincial government in order to procure
   the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the
   Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the
   Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act
   of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the
   States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would
   respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new
   governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January
   1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects
   of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and
   the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same
   time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be
   upheld.
{2268}
   This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the
   treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. …
   Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered
   his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his
   good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of
   Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new
   governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John
   yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what
   was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577.
   The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these
   concessions were a mere deception."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapters 7-9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
   The administration of Don John.
   Orange's well-founded distrust.
   Emancipation of Antwerp.
   Battle of Gemblours.
   Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.
   Corruption of Flemish nobles.
   Submission of the Walloon provinces.
   Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.
   Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.

   "It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked
   for, and that everything for which they had contended had been
   conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the
   Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of
   the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and
   Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the
   Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was
   accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of
   Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget
   the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of
   the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and
   that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was
   convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted
   letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment,
   in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs
   were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places
   in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in
   detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles.
   He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to
   betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally
   themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events
   proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize
   the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as
   it was published and sent to him, William, after conference
   with these states, published a severe criticism on its
   provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared
   to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty
   the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent
   them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he
   bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish
   governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed
   to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's
   letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most
   unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the
   liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip
   was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on
   ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that
   brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that
   Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by
   which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had
   bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get
   possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and
   the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to
   find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of
   their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the
   terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt.
   Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and
   the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the
   Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of
   Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange
   put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was
   in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against
   him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German
   Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the
   Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made
   the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the
   highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of
   Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the
   Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in
   February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small
   towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the
   governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority.
   But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a
   burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor
   of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma,
   and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a
   very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto
   controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to
   be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally,
   according to the statesmanship of the age, the most
   accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond
   those of Philip, and during his long career in the
   Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served
   the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as
   Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had
   no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving,
   lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or
   swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an
   excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the
   two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles,
   and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots.
   Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the
   belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been
   dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to
   patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible
   to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is
   the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the
   experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the
   Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince
   of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe,
   i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

{2269}

   This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had
   detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national
   jealousy would induce the French government, which was
   Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides,
   Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as
   the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and
   unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party
   of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however,
   soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty
   of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first
   purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The
   provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and
   Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On
   January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually
   the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was
   greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic
   finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising
   Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian
   provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the
   Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of
   allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the
   siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost
   its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was
   betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to
   Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at
   the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was
   committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who
   betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year,
   1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn
   up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and
   miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head
   (25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any
   crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank.
   … William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the
   civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to
   Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning
   of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general,
   … relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was
   defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of
   remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event
   in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally
   issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument,
   Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to
   accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever
   else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots.
   The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The
   Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and
   Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal
   sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. …
   Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ;
   his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the
   government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act
   of Abjuration.'"

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Story of Holland,
      chapters 11-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 5, chapters 4-5,
      and part 6, chapters 1-4._

      _Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
      Don John of Austria,
      volume 2, chapters 8-10._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
   Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.
   Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.
   Base treachery of Anjou.
   The "French Fury" at Antwerp.
   Assassination of the Prince of Orange.

   "What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great
   step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it
   were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two
   portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct
   individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been
   reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United
   Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of
   agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The
   movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and
   of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two
   elections being accomplished in the same manner by the
   representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and
   of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the
   part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the
   Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the
   whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy
   political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an
   energetic population, to be combined into one free and
   prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few
   grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of
   the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the
   consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,
   the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,
   all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred
   provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of
   William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon
   his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the
   united states; he might have been, but always refused to
   become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries
   by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.
   … 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very
   unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon
   [soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much
   more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without
   intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses
   only on this account—that it may not be thought that,
   instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been
   seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.
   Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be
   of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The
   unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more
   opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,
   the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally
   held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation
   of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,
   whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by
   the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave
   of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus
   it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince
   should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although
   he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those
   provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the
   proposed election of Anjou.
{2270}
   This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a
   great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this
   hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal
   influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure
   through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his
   appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince
   of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention
   of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,
   however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and
   retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,
   and which was surrendered to him in November.

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3)._

   Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court
   to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined
   the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor.
   "Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the
   honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far
   as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl
   of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite
   and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp
   with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th
   of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and
   Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved
   himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed
   this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the
   Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a
   grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on
   the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he
   quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young
   man who approached him with the pretence of offering a
   petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant
   at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the
   procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was
   severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able
   to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges,
   and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the
   ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military
   exploits now took place [the most important of them being the
   capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince
   of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and
   unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of
   power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and
   possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his
   discontent into treason against the people with whom he had
   made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a
   deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was
   ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of
   Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and
   hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the
   enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he
   caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the
   city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard
   of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards
   at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside.
   "The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their
   confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion
   or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their
   freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate
   all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various
   trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the
   enemy. … The French were driven successively from the
   streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by
   flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise
   [known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of
   the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts
   simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk
   and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the
   Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this
   crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never
   surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the
   indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the
   former from excess and the latter from execration. The
   disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses
   as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was
   negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with
   renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He
   in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10,
   1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William
   was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one
   of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so
   persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his
   foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house,
   after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few
   moments.

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6)._

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.
   The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,
   and the organization of their government.
   Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.
   Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.

   At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the
   limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand,
   and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be
   briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as
   it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces
   in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault,
   Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras,
   Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic
   Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still
   held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had
   taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the
   States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical
   petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while
   East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed
   territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these
   limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the
   territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom
   of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what
   is now the territory of Belgium. …
{2271}
   What now was the political position of the United Provinces at
   this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the
   Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and
   Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no
   opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no
   sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great
   characteristic of the Netherland government was the
   municipality. Each Province contained a large number of
   cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying
   in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap
   (Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens,
   and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members
   being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever
   vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the
   college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by
   means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of
   one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor,
   or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was
   appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of
   Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration
   of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates
   of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of
   senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial;
   and there were generally two, and sometimes three,
   burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular
   branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of
   representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and
   large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general
   feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction
   upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an
   integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear,
   through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the
   general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the
   most decided political capacities into the administration of
   public affairs, and for organizing the most practical
   opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland
   constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened
   one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death
   of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was
   tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and
   universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair
   was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded
   by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the
   murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed
   a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to
   the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next
   movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to
   the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his
   family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost
   royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his
   carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver
   spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of
   at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven
   children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and
   daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of
   Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before
   his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive
   in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from
   school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become …
   thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the
   King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17
   years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he
   resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every
   drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the
   spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding
   himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the
   States General established a State Council, as a provisional
   executive board, for the term of three months, for the
   Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such
   parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union.
   At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who
   accepted the responsible position, after three days'
   deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from
   Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from
   Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from
   Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined
   to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and
   military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend
   the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient
   privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in
   service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union.
   Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the
   treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council,
   without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which
   body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. …
   Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the
   calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. …
   In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no
   avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble.
   Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had
   made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's
   efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own
   baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that
   powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth
   was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. …
   Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon
   the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the
   water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off,
   Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma
   likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation
   with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a
   place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was
   disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the
   result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The
   noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly
   surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins,
   and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous
   two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat,
   powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously
   surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and
   slender one for the great extent of the place and its former
   importance, had been estimated at 70,000.
{2272}
   The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants
   were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one
   individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25
   monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The
   fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin
   (19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August,
   1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender
   of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend
   and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots,
   and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The
   command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with
   the new republic."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
   The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.
   Decay of the city.

   "After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to
   the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in
   history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the
   valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to
   detail with minuteness in this general history the various
   contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the
   defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly
   adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military
   genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below
   Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city
   with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and
   wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite
   materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in
   the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the
   project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as
   visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these
   discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed
   unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and
   at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed,
   would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed
   upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the
   river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The
   bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such
   distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the
   Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval
   between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with
   planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the
   river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two
   forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still,
   however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and
   1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by
   the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass
   without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became
   necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across
   it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet
   apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel
   was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men;
   while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on
   each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet.
   During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a
   year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress
   of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime
   commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their
   subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan
   suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to
   destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have
   been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were
   sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which
   two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each,
   packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles.
   One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its
   destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with
   terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had
   attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores
   as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the
   explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged
   with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and
   wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged.
   Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time
   insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their
   plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the
   damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either
   diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently
   sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through
   openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge,
   however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a
   transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between
   Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under
   water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession
   of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success,
   too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they
   were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the
   dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese
   was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more
   favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th
   1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received,
   however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A
   great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of
   Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

   The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was
   instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all
   wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a
   world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in
   their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Schiller,
      Siege of Antwerp._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
   Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces
   declined by France and England.
   Delusive English succors.
   The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.
   Useless battle at Zutphen.

   "It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its
   protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,
   an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among
   States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such
   an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of
   Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the
   Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and
   England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.
   Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and
   hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.
{2273}
   If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and
   extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his
   own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the
   united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new
   policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain
   in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,
   under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the
   weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in
   France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League
   confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and
   the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of
   Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces
   of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout
   Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in
   England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys
   were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which
   had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen
   as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country
   to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder
   counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the
   Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants
   of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover
   the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp
   of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she
   was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy
   with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to
   afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm
   against Philip, at the least possible cost, without
   precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and
   money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held
   as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of
   the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and
   sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As
   she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her
   protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.
   Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands
   profited little by her aid."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

   Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December,
   1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to
   prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good
   faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard
   Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and
   English troops might have taken the field in perfect
   condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to
   find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would
   have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the
   population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and
   Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his
   chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could
   not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A
   lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of
   the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so
   necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But
   months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was
   treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer
   of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had
   come over in the past September were dead. Their places were
   taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by
   mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and
   led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an
   opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the
   enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the
   place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils,
   and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising
   held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated
   with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice
   on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the
   time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse.
   He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in
   the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the
   latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two
   towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed
   in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced
   the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's
   orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in
   person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little
   or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered.
   Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted,
   by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows
   did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also
   three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet
   seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into
   his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at
   last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now
   followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not
   worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders]
   would rather have lived with bread and drink under your
   Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the
   King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your
   Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean
   soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of
   it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three
   or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you
   shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part
   not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have
   what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and
   charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal
   graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them
   keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of
   the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still
   clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his
   oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of
   Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay
   figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and
   they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging
   fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see
   that she was not improving her position by keeping her army
   idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his
   government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing,
   took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August
   [1586].
{2274}
   Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and
   Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel;
   but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had
   fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river;
   Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen.
   Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex,
   Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no
   special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff;
   Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir
   John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of
   the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his
   Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and
   9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered
   to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside
   Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the
   communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the
   morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and
   Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project
   by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy.
   … Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and
   the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter
   4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about
   500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming,
   but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at
   the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down
   charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English
   lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly.
   … Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of,
   never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the
   Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch
   them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of
   their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A
   few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives
   had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck
   by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning
   from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma
   immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. …
   Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the
   natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had
   taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent
   command; and leaving the government to the Council of the
   States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in
   November for London."

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth,
      chapter 33 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Correspondence of Leicester during his
      Government of the Low Countries
      (Camden Society 27)._

      _W. Gray,
      Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney,
      chapter 10._

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      chapters 7-8._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.
   Great prosperity of the United Provinces.
   Siege and capture of Sluys.
   The last of Leicester.

   "Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic
   dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition,
   compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under
   the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep
   gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited
   the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes
   of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine,
   and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the
   remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the
   admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe,
   were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in
   one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and
   wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and
   Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from
   their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their
   bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A
   striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the
   United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also,
   but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and
   the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. …
   They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative
   half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation
   found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war,
   therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to
   commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were
   crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more
   than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security
   they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and
   the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to
   their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account
   of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred
   thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The
   population of the towns became so overflowing that it was
   found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it.
   … The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and
   the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the
   Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the
   summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he
   afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order
   to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count
   of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of
   Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the
   Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500
   horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the
   garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that
   number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of
   Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on
   intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he
   hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The
   loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester
   and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility."
   He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the
   following year the queen required him to resign his command
   and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the
   English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who
   occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain,
   was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against
   England the next year

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapters 2-3 (volume 2)._

{2275}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
   Successes of Prince Maurice.
   Departure of Parma to France.
   His death.
   Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.

   "The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in
   1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and
   animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his
   army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to
   raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by
   a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis
   Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to
   surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his
   arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got
   possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced
   70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with
   turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low
   Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old
   Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government
   of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in
   the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21,
   1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of
   the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the
   reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable
   progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their
   frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the
   Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death
   of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592]
   delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but
   old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took
   the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593,
   notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before
   Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of
   Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the
   military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender
   at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir
   Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took
   Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony.
   The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the
   Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the
   Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of
   King Philip."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
      Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
      pages 25-28._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      part 1, chapters 10-15._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1597.
   Spanish operations in Northern France.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
   Steady decline of Spanish power.
   Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta
   Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.
   Death of Philip II.
   Negotiations for peace.
   A twelve years' truce agreed upon.
   Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.

   "Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and
   unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming
   to the Catholic faith. …

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

   Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the
   religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the
   ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon
   the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were
   great: but the gallant little republic still found means to
   assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the
   king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was
   declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for
   Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish
   troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish
   rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and
   fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the
   stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid
   upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D.
   1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of
   that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the
   harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes
   of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of
   Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces.
   But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made
   over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta
   Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who
   had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his
   priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip
   had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months
   afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in
   the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little
   republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and
   prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated
   provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste
   and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland,
   or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic
   should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy
   augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed
   through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an
   army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the
   Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier,
   to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for
   upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the
   Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally
   succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and
   after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both
   sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his
   soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while
   Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch
   fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese;
   and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's
   commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the
   side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and
   anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus,
   with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for
   upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire
   for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of
   unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of
   reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more
   republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch
   maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were
   first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was
   the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by
   the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the
   bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The
   states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and
   received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States
   was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but,
   as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted
   upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in
   words dictated by itself. …
{2276}
   At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the
   terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time:
   but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The
   Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to
   treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels:
   they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and
   they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and
   West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided.
   Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice,
   the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But
   Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations
   were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed:
   but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length
   [April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve
   years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a
   treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point
   upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were
   unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions
   concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its
   trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won:
   the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end.
   Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their
   commissioners had treated with the states-general at the
   Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had
   been waging war for nearly half a century."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapters 3-4 (volume 2)._

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4)._

      _Douglas Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland England, and America,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.
   Rise and growth of Eastern trade.
   Formation of the Dutch East India Company.

   "Previous to their assertion of national independence, the
   commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of
   Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their
   dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman,
   the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where,
   having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous
   produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His
   descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam,
   nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla
   for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook
   the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in
   India began. The influence which their trade with India and
   their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the
   greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a
   source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and
   glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks,
   both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the
   outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that
   sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in
   1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were
   about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that
   the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands,
   whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of
   Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to
   encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives
   whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however,
   they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home
   with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud
   and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. …
   From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed
   the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the
   Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes
   of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with
   whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious
   demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected
   cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards,
   whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk,
   indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the
   suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated
   East India Company was formed under charter granted by the
   States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000
   guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam,
   Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They
   established factories at many places, both on the continent of
   India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at
   Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on
   them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a
   station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a
   settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission
   to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that
   pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of
   his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a
   situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site
   of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar
   quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a
   short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade
   within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six
   years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in
   due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the
   Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they
   maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000
   seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the
   proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in
   sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their
   Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch
   the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it
   afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive
   trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her
   own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her
   government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the
   space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish
   galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of
   them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade
   that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to
   buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. McPherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 2, pages 206-296._

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 3, chapters 3-4._

{2277}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
   Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.
   The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.
   Synod of Dort.

   Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in
   what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the
   pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all
   their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles
   are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to
   the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves
   to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according
   to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the
   eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of
   Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the
   foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused
   their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose
   Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party,
   in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the
   States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition
   that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and
   catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General
   insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of
   the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers
   and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.'
   It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all
   reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt
   spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The
   Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece.
   They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home
   or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from
   position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil
   affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of
   Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently,
   by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The
   question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty,
   but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very
   little about the argument, and his real feelings were
   Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the
   opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or
   Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really
   holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore
   threw all the weight of England into the scale against them.
   Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university,
   in which three champions on the one side were pitted against
   three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal
   of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the
   sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught
   the disease and died. He was so much respected that the
   University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young
   Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor.
   Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God,
   Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis
   Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a
   considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted
   to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a
   reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book,
   and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself
   bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he
   said had been cemented with English blood—and because the
   University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of
   England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies
   there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the
   Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to
   read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors
   that he had detected, recommending the States to protest
   against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was
   much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was
   speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a
   quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. …
   Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together
   with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had
   chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost
   accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on
   the other hand, was glad to set the English King against
   Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of
   strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a
   betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on
   Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own
   preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the
   Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants,
   while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called
   Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of
   Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of
   Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the
   populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their
   old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates
   were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second,
   namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of
   all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it
   could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them
   absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was
   predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals
   were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The
   States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them,
   were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were
   Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue
   was how far the power of the general government outweighed
   that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to
   follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and
   the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands
   of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the
   Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection
   on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who
   endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who
   struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that
   now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England
   favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French
   support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm.
   Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there
   were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though
   he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe
   of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however,
   preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice
   succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for
   Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to
   Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England,
   Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July,
   1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national
   synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the
   cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in
   a rage. …
{2278}
   Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their
   consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was
   carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. …
   The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp
   Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe
   illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress,
   assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in
   league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht,
   hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the
   Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the
   summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his
   adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as
   Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General,
   he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak
   with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a
   lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same
   manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary
   Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by
   which the High Council reversed that of the States-General,
   and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius,
   one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in
   jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The
   synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted
   till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and
   Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of
   preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless
   they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland
   Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that
   predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but
   divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of
   mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom.
   … The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with
   the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in
   prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from
   Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of
   them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was
   examined day by day for three months, without any indictment;
   no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted
   pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books
   and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the
   flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but
   refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they
   should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but
   as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life.
   Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the
   sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was
   pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual
   imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his
   wife, in 1621.

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 6, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      Life and Death of John of Barneveld,
      chapters 14-22 (volume 2)._

      _J. Arminius,
      Works, etc.; edited by Nichols,
      volume 1._

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.
   Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded
   Plymouth Colony in New England.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
   The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.
   Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.
   Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.
   Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
   End of the Twelve Years Truce.
   Renewal of war.
   Death of Prince Maurice.
   Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to
   the king of Spain.

   "In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of
   Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition
   that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns,
   one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the
   States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was
   in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is
   true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making
   overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished
   to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the
   manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch
   party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the
   great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in
   its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that
   the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more
   distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not
   content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin
   his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625,
   Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long
   as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we
   can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of
   Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not
   been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice,
   was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States,
   and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy
   which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by
   mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few
   years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned,
   the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those
   whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became
   the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews,
   who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and
   internal commerce."

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      Story of Holland,
      chapter 26._

   "Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of.
   Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but
   Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of
   Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his
   own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards
   encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay
   their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus;
   but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice
   could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground
   solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623.
   … He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda,
   one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. …
   The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during
   a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince
   Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An
   access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to
   the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."

      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:
      Maurice of Orange-Nassau,
      page 47._

{2279}

   The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort
   to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the
   place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the
   next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627
   the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In
   1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish
   silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at
   12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the
   Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed
   truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become
   public than they encountered general and violent opposition,"
   especially from the West India Company, which found the war
   profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same
   time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The
   Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed
   impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded
   Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid
   waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without
   interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was
   surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of
   Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates,
   troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations;
   but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies
   of the States, who had authority over the commander, required
   him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince
   achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of
   Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines
   were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army
   from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who
   brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face
   of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and
   the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened
   the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed
   shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her
   death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the
   surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain,
   who placed the government, after it had been administered a
   short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of
   Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of
   his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo
   [known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the
   lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      The Fighting Veres,
      part 2, chapter 4._

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1623.
   The massacre of Amboyna.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.
   Conquests in Brazil and their loss.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1625.
   The Protestant alliance in the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Cardinal Infant in the government
   of the Spanish Provinces.
   His campaigns against the Dutch and French.
   Invasion of France.
   Dutch capture of Breda.

   In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was
   thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family
   should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands
   [Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly
   conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip
   III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a
   considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000
   men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on
   his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction
   with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly
   contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German
   Protestants, at Nordlingen. …

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military
   government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when
   the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from
   France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised
   troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran
   legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a
   considerable military force. At the same time, an army of
   20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king
   at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé
   the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however,
   that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at
   Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be
   placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange,
   who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors.
   In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant
   separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to
   confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of
   Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This
   latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at
   Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a
   favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to
   retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march
   with little farther interruption, and effected its intended
   union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After
   this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the
   allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where
   great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two
   armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and
   the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a
   horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings,
   forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government,
   now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The
   Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement.
   … His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in
   besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they
   intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain."
   The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under
   Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant.
{2280}
   The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange
   afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the
   French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of
   Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the
   half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering
   severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde.
   The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but
   little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated
   Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of
   its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and
   Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the
   policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading
   back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of
   their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure
   of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were
   limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of
   the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced
   by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the
   opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of
   the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He
   took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the
   frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions
   over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by
   these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his
   exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from
   three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north,
   Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these
   expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the
   invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to
   the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his
   generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de
   Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army
   which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in
   cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch,
   the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost
   without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French
   ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some
   months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more
   of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his
   country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards,
   till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They
   forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and
   "occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise;
   and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread
   themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers.
   The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from
   the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital
   was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems
   probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris,
   the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince
   Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently
   "receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town
   presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time
   occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from
   their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence."
   They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and
   artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was
   obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those
   fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by
   the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of
   their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from
   plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The
   Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for
   some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands,
   which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal
   La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even
   while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could
   not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in
   Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he
   received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the
   Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the
   Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000
   peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and
   drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the
   arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at
   Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that
   that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any
   way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that
   province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had
   anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine
   weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant,
   who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the
   heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the
   Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered
   himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts
   which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person
   he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested
   Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals;
   Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French
   to raise the siege of St. Omer."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.
   Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.
   Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; and 1643.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
   French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).
   Siege and capture of Dunkirk.

   "In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and
   began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of
   leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by
   the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it
   was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders
   were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French
   under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little
   except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the
   Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook
   the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was,
   however, well content even with the moderate glory of such
   warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one
   portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders
   were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by
   accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai,
   which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks
   in a vigorous siege of Mardyck.
{2281}
   This place was finally captured for the second time in
   fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was
   ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months.
   … By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left
   free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts
   turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was
   situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that
   made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its
   harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might
   safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and
   the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for
   pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants
   of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the
   shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the
   harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern
   France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns
   along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are
   said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The
   position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack,
   and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added
   terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand,
   far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and
   its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon
   them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What
   had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest.
   What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and
   wagons could pass over what the day before had been as
   inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a
   siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from
   any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of
   storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the
   changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The
   city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000
   of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien
   was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with
   skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This
   plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced
   with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of
   September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent
   supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty
   admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten
   ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in
   the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city
   with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men
   worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini
   attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force
   Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle,
   and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried
   under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a
   breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke
   and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell
   back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the
   advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing
   now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not
   think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if
   he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city
   should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last
   army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments,
   and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A
   siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and
   nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapter 2._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
   Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the
   United Provinces.

   "The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]
   that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable
   terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in
   fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and
   France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the
   struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty
   of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,
   except jointly with France. On the other hand, the
   States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and
   ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully
   fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,
   plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster
   [where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia
   were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the
   Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each
   of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used
   Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was
   intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a
   separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given
   her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be
   transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of
   the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had
   never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and
   that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been
   idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of
   alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,
   and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring
   of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to
   the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated
   protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted
   that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable
   them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as
   those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of
   Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a
   treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,
   articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted
   in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,
   though the States-General still declared that no peace should
   be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active
   hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress
   was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the
   Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave
   the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at
   last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for
   eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and
   Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their
   reputation with a shameful blemish.'
{2282}
   It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his
   proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to
   oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce
   of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United
   Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At
   the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them
   'in quality of, and as holding them for independent
   provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness
   for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United
   Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be
   closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus
   sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the
   Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous
   commercial advantages were secured and certain additional
   territory was ceded to the States-General."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a
   barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and
   France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But
   the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet
   arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All
   that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to
   back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively
   upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the
   barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make
   peace."

      _J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John De Witt,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.
   The Spanish war with France.
   Siege and Battle of Lens.

   "While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands,
   it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording
   the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the
   army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

   As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not
   exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two
   marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on
   alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they
   were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a
   drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and
   besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the
   command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold.
   He took town after town before their face; and towards the end
   of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a
   place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions,
   including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two
   marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish
   camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the
   neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being
   suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be
   made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too
   helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had
   recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger
   to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he
   could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the
   French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its
   fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded
   in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and
   were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a
   few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but
   small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in
   Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore,
   the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace
   Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the
   prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. …
   Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and
   Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a
   more successful campaign. The archduke had received no
   reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head
   against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a
   while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true,
   but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost
   annihilating a division with which the prince had detached
   Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle
   of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as
   we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French
   army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken
   without the garrison making the slightest effort at
   resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having
   sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count
   d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German
   army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the
   hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on
   the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and
   he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which,
   eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack.
   For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that
   Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000,
   with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on
   retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into
   disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded
   by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned
   the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that
   he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the
   advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant
   enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in
   to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon
   came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres
   on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand
   before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory
   declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a
   heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left
   3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000
   prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a
   mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage,
   attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir E. Cust,
      Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
      part 1, pages 149-152._

{2283}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.
   Suspension of the Stadtholdership.
   Supremacy of the States of Holland.

   The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father,
   Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at
   all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. …
   His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an
   interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of
   Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and
   Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud
   descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been
   married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it
   beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged
   her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official
   of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry
   cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective
   stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed
   supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to
   Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an
   insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought
   the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an
   understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and
   wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return
   to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But
   if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in
   particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with
   peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the
   disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had
   been promised to them. After twelve days of useless
   deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The
   step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give
   rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of
   Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he
   expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of
   the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the
   Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from
   the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order.
   The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between
   the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers
   which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the
   terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four
   provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy
   each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the
   maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the
   preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently
   commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland,
   accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the
   Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort,
   including a large number of officers. He was charged to
   address them with remonstrances and threats intended to
   intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of
   the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was
   quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his
   visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to
   enter the place with his following, and he returned to the
   Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent
   city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the
   citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had
   succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the
   most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his
   attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from
   the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious
   quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by
   renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France.
   "Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he
   pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count
   d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the
   King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to
   attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army
   of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time
   with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England,
   and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with
   each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50
   vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his
   co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city
   of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy
   Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of
   his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and
   calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her
   assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The
   internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce,
   when three months later the Prince of Orange, having
   over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with
   small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried
   off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age,
   leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death.
   … His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily
   and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait
   22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It
   closed the succession to him for many years, by making the
   stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. …
   The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named
   William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little
   more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of
   William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state
   prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to
   take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the
   provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their
   own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the
   pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full
   enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on
   their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their
   province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all
   the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited
   the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. …
   Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office
   was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this
   transformation of the government, the States of Holland took
   the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of
   the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year
   1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two
   forms of constitution. The question was whether the United
   Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General,
   or whether the government should belong to the States of each
   province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations
   imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign
   in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a
   suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership.
   "Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder,
   Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was
   the gainer by all that that power lost. …
{2284}
   The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the
   principal instrument of government of the republic, was
   composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the
   towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States
   of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented
   them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in
   the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces,
   without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland
   required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy
   and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as
   Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest
   members of the assembly."

      _A. L. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.
   Still held to form a part of the Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.
   Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.
   The causes.

   "That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the
   waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without
   natural advantages except those of contact with the sea,
   should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become
   the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of
   history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has
   one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of
   Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might
   he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of
   its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers,
   and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two
   hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his
   abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every
   feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot.
   The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as
   to the vast increase of its population, was its religious
   toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a
   Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a
   Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists,
   Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to
   live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe
   like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time
   occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for
   religion; that with them theology was of less account than
   commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who
   could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war
   had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all,
   as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During
   its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side
   by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had
   done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her
   coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity
   to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless
   persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the
   State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes
   leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which
   are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb,
   a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a
   pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the
   establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at
   Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy
   of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they
   occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of
   Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As
   the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the
   letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that
   factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining
   the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The
   statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them
   merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign
   travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce.
   Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second.
   In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally
   divided among his children, and the business is continued and
   expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In
   England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son,
   who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his
   patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had
   become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their
   manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up
   in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the
   purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in
   quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our
   manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to
   bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the
   Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures
   before us, by their true making, to their very files and
   needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in
   the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own
   manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are
   changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement
   given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful
   inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to
   office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such
   were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as
   they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all
   modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua
   [Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of
   Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of
   the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently
   had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the
   causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives
   several others, as to some of which we shall see more
   hereafter. Among these are the general education of the
   people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the
   poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of
   titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the
   assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which
   controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth
   part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men
   governing a state were ever more enlightened and better
   acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these
   burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries
   gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence
   displayed by these men that the republic, during the
   continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of
   taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since.
{2285}
   The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed
   twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a
   half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances
   five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all
   articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on
   some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal
   taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on
   everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign
   commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the
   system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a
   nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple
   for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen
   of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as
   masters of political economy, at least two centuries in
   advance of their contemporaries."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      volume 2, pages 324-331._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12._

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.
   The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.

   "The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it
   now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland
   was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She
   possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns.
   She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal
   taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at
   Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General
   met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her
   additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's
   power that of the States General also, as representing the
   idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The
   Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of
   'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to
   such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the
   time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660]
   become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole
   Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand
   Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one
   of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de
   Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the
   merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of
   the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,'
   the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the
   governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of
   monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of
   'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the
   uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of
   Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of
   the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had
   shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous
   foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial
   and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position
   relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the
   present day."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Geddes,
      History of the Administration of John de Witt,
      volume 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.
   Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
   Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.
   First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.
   See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.
   War with the English Commonwealth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.
   Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D 1653-1656.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.
   England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.
   Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.
   Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.
   The seizure of New Netherland by the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1665-1666.
   War with England renewed.

   "A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took
   place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the
   commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views
   of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a
   remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.
   Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very
   much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful
   of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles
   II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of
   Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors
   in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there
   existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of
   discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival
   colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and
   constant commercial opposition. These were national motives
   for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.
   But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest
   were set aside by the political factions which divided the
   United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of
   the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical
   party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests
   of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch
   merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility
   had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New
   Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of
   France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against
   Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De
   Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of
   Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval
   engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by
   Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the
   Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;
   Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same
   day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English
   minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it
   was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade
   the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in
   consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.
{2286}
   This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified
   to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement
   against the States of Holland he would find the troops of
   France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the
   States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the
   information that the French monarch was about to send to their
   assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,
   however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,
   till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him
   to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that
   year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …
   The part that France took in the war was altogether
   insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from
   the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made
   vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the
   beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De
   Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under
   Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four
   days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would
   seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both
   fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports
   of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they
   again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval
   engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered
   a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were
   captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were
   killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not
   come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis
   did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the
   losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the
   grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the
   slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost
   superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,
   while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with
   the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a
   moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and
   Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the
   Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great
   number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels
   were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout
   England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were
   sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities
   themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from
   the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations
   for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on
   upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were
   speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory
   she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the
   States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of
   July."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   "The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames
   woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream
   of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys
   tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave
   things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.'
   But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and
   discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his
   own advantage."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of the British Navy,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.
   The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.
   The War of the Queen's Rights.

   In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta
   of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly
   renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all
   rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of
   the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the
   long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis
   discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which
   he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial
   greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her
   father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain
   provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first
   marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second
   marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and
   Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of
   an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of
   his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the
   principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in
   September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency
   of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began
   quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a
   formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the
   courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the
   Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of
   Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a
   "journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey
   being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the
   command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began
   its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose,
   crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was
   taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp
   siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military
   engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay
   surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai
   endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille
   was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king
   before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again
   become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than
   it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places.
   … September 1, the whole French army was found assembled
   before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the
   French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the
   garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly,
   returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost,
   went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great
   changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of
   England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made
   his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the
   partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further
   "journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

{2287}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668.
   The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden
   against the French king.

   "The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the
   last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of
   war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for
   the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the
   approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their
   mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he
   sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife;
   that he should be content to retain possession of the
   conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them
   either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of
   Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen
   his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently
   humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was
   the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the
   States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders.
   Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at
   Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and
   sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to
   London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal
   of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to
   compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the
   terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with
   promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of
   delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the
   short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been
   observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated
   [January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to
   the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least
   an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader.
   The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations
   bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with
   a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with
   assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by
   the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in
   their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain
   on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to
   accept one part of that alternative before the end of May,
   and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition
   that France should not interfere by force of arms. These
   treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret,
   and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal
   of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down
   their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On
   the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and
   afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that
   circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis
   received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty
   indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of
   Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the
   emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the
   Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and
   thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing
   which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. …
   The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the
   eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish
   cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at
   Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the
   conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was
   re-established between the two crowns. … The States could
   ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that
   Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders,
   and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is
   said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the
   Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not
   join with England to confine France within its ancient limits,
   resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the
   French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch
   territory."

      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 6._

   "Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed
   writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to
   be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot
   possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this
   celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that
   Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous
   league; still it is certain that the world then, and long
   after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the
   prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries.
   Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the
   credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival
   power."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Sir William Temple (Essays)_.

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 14._

      _Sir W. Temple,
      Letters, January 1668
      (Works, volume 1)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of England, 17th Century,
      book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1670.
   Betrayed to France by the English king.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.
   The war with France and England.
   Murder of the DeWitts.
   Restoration of the Stadtholdership.

   "The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began
   to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once
   by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that
   Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles
   complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and
   that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William
   of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on
   the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an
   immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would
   have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,
   under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned
   towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a
   drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,
   half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other
   side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as
   a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the
   French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the
   river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran
   the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering
   to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their
   independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the
   Prince of Orange.
{2288}
   The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying
   the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready
   to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by
   their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,
   still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that
   her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy
   could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The
   spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,
   Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud
   outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he
   should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the
   choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular
   cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself
   the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd
   accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,
   and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his
   brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should
   accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the
   Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke
   open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely
   tore them limb from limb."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Landmarks of History,
      part 3, chapter 4, part 6._

   The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts,
   rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether
   primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it
   secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had
   already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in,
   placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the
   province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked
   with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. …
   Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners
   and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th
   of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been
   victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united
   fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but
   it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a
   contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military
   operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end.
   There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was
   not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the
   latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable
   them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam.
   Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St.
   Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm
   of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition
   of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to
   succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with
   16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On
   September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of
   Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction,
   intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne,
   by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat,
   utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector
   of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and
   made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found
   the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages
   were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian
   Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of
   Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on
   the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the
   Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the
   Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the
   7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp
   fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees,
   driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last
   time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were
   beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from
   daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition
   against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the
   Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince
   of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near
   Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of
   Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne
   and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in
   England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles
   was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland,
   notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now
   turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition.
   In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes
   of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the
   Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the
   name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of
   Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of
   France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis
   resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in
   the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he
   had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make
   peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held
   her ground in the league.

      _O. Airy,
      The English Reformation and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of France,
      chapter 44 (volume 5)._

      _C. D. Yonge,
      History of France under the Bourbons,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _A. F. Pontalis,
      John de Witt,
      chapters 12-14 (volume 2)._

      _Sir W. Temple,
      Memoirs,
      part 2 (works, volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.
   Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.
   Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.
   The Treaty of Westminster.
   Peace with England.
   Relinquishment of New Netherland.

   An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England
   "was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its
   engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,
   the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the
   British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him
   further supplies, and that he could not expect any from
   Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable
   conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his
   retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish
   ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the
   States General had sent full powers.
{2289}
   In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was
   signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and
   four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by
   Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the
   flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to
   England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of
   neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the
   Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was
   covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles
   and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party
   from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,
   whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of
   the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall
   be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same
   condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall
   be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the
   King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him
   on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of
   Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal
   restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the
   Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear
   of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more
   dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous
   war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces
   relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of
   England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated
   directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose
   at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of
   York. It was claimed by some that James's former American
   proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having
   been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had
   been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was
   now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of
   Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was
   therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother
   the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the
   absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over
   British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any
   other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the
   same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the
   territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long
   Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,
   were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as
   has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm
   the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.
   It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …
   As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost
   necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had
   directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from
   the Dutch."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.
   Continued war of the Coalition against France.

   "The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV.
   embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well
   advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood
   the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the
   facility moreover of making others more profitable, while
   defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify
   himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat
   separately with Holland while continuing the war against the
   House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an
   excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the
   more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the
   Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the
   French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the
   United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis
   resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne
   covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend
   Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French
   positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the
   environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive
   was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning
   of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000
   cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do
   his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the
   country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and
   Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege;
   Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the
   subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest
   of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the
   first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more
   to be separated, and France was never again to lose her
   frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of
   the year, had projected a general attack against France. They
   had debated among themselves the design of introducing two
   great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from
   Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade
   Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts
   of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of
   the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of
   these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near
   Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took
   quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and
   routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe
   (August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying
   forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by
   side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible
   loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory
   complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon,
   until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly
   crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at
   Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th,
   near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the
   Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and
   inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which
   made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black
   blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his
   troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so
   that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he
   foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist."
   In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the
   Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified
   bridge, crossing the Rhine.
{2290}
   Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too
   late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of
   Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed,
   before the close of the year, the most famous of the military
   movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily
   reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and
   gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when
   he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he
   traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in
   December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their
   forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at
   Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he
   expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the
   renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to
   accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most
   glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of
   ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of
   the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened
   in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two
   masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has
   been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two
   valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being
   able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred
   for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the
   canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each
   other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July,
   Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with
   advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing
   his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the
   enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two
   lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out
   his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and
   nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine.
   Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived,
   Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and
   they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important
   operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year.
   In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered
   disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was
   badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which
   he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also,
   making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were
   beaten back, at Fehrbellin.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

   But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His
   navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the
   Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in
   the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main
   effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands.
   Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht
   was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for
   nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important
   French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke
   of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the
   Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai
   April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of
   Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the
   latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower
   Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the
   inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who
   outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when
   they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the
   Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations
   began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent.
   The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The
   Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on
   the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the
   city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the
   French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month.
   Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of
   Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11,
   followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of
   Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody
   battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three
   days after it had been signed.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapters 5-6._

   "It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the
   greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this
   occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom,
   which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch
   Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats
   of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then
   condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave
   voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they
   were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not
   only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the
   home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men
   then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of
   mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most
   arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is
   beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on
   Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish
   the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch
   freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from
   the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective
   countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland,
   and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there
   also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in
   England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own
   freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. …
   At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been
   annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have
   occurred in the form and at the time it did."

      _J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, March, 1874)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Hozier,
      Turenne,
      chapters 12-13._

      _T. O. Cockayne,
      Life of Turenne._

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Condé,
      chapter 12._

      See, also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.
   Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.
   His accession to the English throne.

      See ENGLAND A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER),
      to 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.
   The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

{2291}

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.
   The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1692.
   The Naval Battle of La Hogue.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.
   The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1693.
   The Battle of Neerwinden.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.
   Campaigns without battles.
   The recovery of Namur.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1694; and 1695-1696.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   French conquests restored.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

A. D. 1698-1700.
   The question of the Spanish Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1701.
   Occupied by French troops.

         See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.
   The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.
   The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   Marlborough's first campaigns.

   "The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,
   owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of
   Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part
   with France. About the middle of April, the prince of
   Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to
   the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with
   the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice
   of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the
   French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a
   vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful
   carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to
   relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself
   between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that
   place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more
   rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and
   moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton
   barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to
   take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by
   Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the
   peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives
   of the states, who attended the army under the name of field
   deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the
   Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without
   the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,
   with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the
   ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The
   Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates
   were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit
   of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;
   and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,
   said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of
   these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly
   retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing
   Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a
   demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson
   of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had
   commanded the French army in name. He now returned to
   Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst
   Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and
   Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with
   Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;
   and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The
   duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries
   about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and
   menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,
   fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late
   campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of
   Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost
   3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this
   year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black
   Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;
   whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army
   under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum
   was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.
   Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent
   this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of
   Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture
   of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the
   emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was
   once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,
   liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,
   in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for
   recovering the ground and the strong places from which
   Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The
   campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with
   the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before
   the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation
   was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with
   the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal
   abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on
   the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented
   from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch
   generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field
   deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the
   easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage
   of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near
   Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field
   deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed
   with a facility which only proves the extent of his
   superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of
   Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the
   emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very
   capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the
   19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter
   upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.
   … On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states
   general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the
   Moselle.
{2292}
   Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own
   security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in
   Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked
   were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,
   thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and
   Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or
   allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and
   the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince
   of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the
   Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march
   upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the
   states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour
   of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted
   they would permit their troops to share the glory of his
   enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his
   confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed
   to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He
   met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.
   Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career
   of war and victory."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      The History of England,
      volume 9, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Creighton,
      Life of Marlborough,
      chapters 6-7._

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 5._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 11-22 (volume 1)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapters 5-6 (volume 1)._

      Sec, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.

   After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the
   field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough
   passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of
   1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,
   again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in
   Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,
   commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must
   depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and
   promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also
   were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated
   an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as
   were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince
   Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the
   time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and
   set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise
   whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few
   ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed
   himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough
   nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give
   battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded
   Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He
   intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,
   where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.
   And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there
   came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had
   suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of
   Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."
   Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid
   by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his
   colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,
   leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security
   of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the
   citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so
   that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with
   ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the
   fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of
   July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,
   Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch
   troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first
   object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across
   the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous
   fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and
   morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,
   under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough
   laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as
   also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to
   commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that
   for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for
   a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a
   nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;
   but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division
   of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,
   General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and
   compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius
   devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river
   [Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On
   the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk
   in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe
   near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of
   battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main
   chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day
   being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of
   Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,
   observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding
   movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They
   encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and
   rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before
   they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed
   to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main
   posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now
   ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly
   the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and
   ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take
   place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg
   interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that
   Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a
   victory which he confidently declared would have been greater
   than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the
   year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the
   stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch
   deputies and the general who counselled them.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 6._

   In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by
   Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

{2293}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

   "The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,
   his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English
   political business detaining him in London till the end of
   April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were
   still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and
   intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.
   … He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,
   which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen
   what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a
   successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the
   kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom
   Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant
   as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the
   Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever
   reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was
   condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time
   fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made
   which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all
   posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached
   most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,
   Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he
   had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight
   at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had
   for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at
   once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two
   generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,
   Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows
   at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines
   had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely
   more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as
   before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of
   the general. … The battle itself was one completely of
   generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.
   It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that
   Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French
   and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of
   the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was
   not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of
   the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting
   on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the
   French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his
   hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a
   completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell
   before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered
   and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.
   Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison
   precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.
   Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the
   French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.
   And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,
   reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks
   from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in
   a district which the day before that battle had been occupied
   by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of
   80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,
   tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a
   small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss
   of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as
   Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of
   Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the
   campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any
   importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as
   that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all
   generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and
   certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The
   Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone
   of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,
   between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected
   to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The
   barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which
   Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of
   the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.
   … It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and
   hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of
   the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion
   of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an
   almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is
   almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to
   anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 6._

   In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years
   terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in
   April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;
      see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 7 and 9._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
   The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

   To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of
   Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the
   spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss
   plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up
   the various contingents that would compose his army. He
   encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to
   bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,
   meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst
   the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite
   and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its
   side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of
   the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of
   Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm
   Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry
   out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the
   Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and
   learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an
   escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his
   arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had
   attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then
   besieging the castle."
{2294}
   The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their
   movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the
   fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,
   convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome
   would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward
   their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies
   united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and
   crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th
   Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to
   the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde
   and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7
   o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by
   the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's
   grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after
   another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were
   carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to
   make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had
   been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have
   the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at
   Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were
   fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The
   Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or
   Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The
   French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied
   finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take
   advantage of their victory. They were within a circle
   commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and
   Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the
   proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The
   siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by
   the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison
   of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable
   undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and
   defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would
   have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth
   who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on
   the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The
   siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on
   the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of
   1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was
   humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies
   would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose
   too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the
   campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same
   skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful
   an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,
   consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and
   Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000
   strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,
   had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had
   been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong
   [under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position
   between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in
   the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his
   troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong
   position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying
   siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of
   July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned
   their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary
   to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to
   drive the allied army from the position it had gained between
   themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody
   battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern
   history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the
   vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to
   20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German
   writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.
   … The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.
   The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all
   its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.
   There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it
   watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,
   the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].
   … But this was the solitary result of the victory."

      _Colonel G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5)._

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapters 5-6._

      _J. W. Gerard,
      Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 17-19._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D, 1709.
   The Barrier Treaty with England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.
   The War of the Spanish Succession:
   The last campaigns of Marlborough.

   "As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at
   Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough
   at once began the active business of the campaign. …
   Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession
   of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In
   spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the
   capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of
   disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war
   into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so
   placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content
   himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.
   Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops
   prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was
   somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in
   England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party
   had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of
   Marlborough and the war had come into power.

      _L. Creighton,
      Life of Marlborough,
      chapters 15-16._

   "In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,
   Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to
   Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his
   lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the
   campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some
   16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French
   system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number
   not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire
   7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask
   themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,
   Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded
   the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had
   himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.
{2295}
   He had given them four great victories in a little more than
   five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not
   unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them
   none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the
   war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,
   independently of the more strictly political considerations,
   … it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing
   Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He
   was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon
   his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;
   and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had
   inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military
   situation was changed from one very much in favour of the
   allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond
   all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Marlborough,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. B. Malleson,
      Prince Eugene of Savoy,
      chapter 12._

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The Treaties of Utrecht.
   Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.
   Barrier towns secured.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.
   Second Barrier Treaty with England.
   Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

   Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the
   treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a
   new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and
   providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the
   Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now
   become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole
   nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The
   States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the
   succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of
   England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the
   States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,
   Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,
   Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to
   the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they
   should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the
   subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,
   "he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed
   in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought
   security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of
   Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;
   Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and
   Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of
   Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and
   Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted
   upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence
   to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and
   cost of its maintenance."

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      chapter 11 (volume 3)._

(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.
    Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.
    The Triple Alliance.
    The Quadruple Alliance.
    The Alliance of Hanover.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.
   The Treaty of Seville.
   The second Treaty of Vienna.
   The Ostend Company abolished.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the French.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.
   French conquests.

   In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War
   were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.
   D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to
   his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the
   Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded
   there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,
   England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but
   Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there
   were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely
   exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young
   Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the
   control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged
   to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against
   these inferior numbers and divided councils the French
   advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various
   movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,
   on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this
   important city, immediately became the principal object with
   the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous
   in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.
   … On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful
   dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover
   the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a
   few miles further, in an excellent position, which he
   strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were
   inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had
   hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three
   allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them
   encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin
   and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow
   valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their
   left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,
   were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête
   de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis
   were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin
   and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully
   fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy
   and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by
   the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French
   officers thought, the strength of the position might bid
   defiance to the boldest assailant.
{2296}
   Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a
   general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts
   on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their
   intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning
   of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and
   his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,
   while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and
   Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His
   Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent
   General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood
   of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's
   division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the
   latter made no further effort. But the British and
   Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with
   them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between
   Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which
   the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which
   the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of
   the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of
   the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,
   diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,
   repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and
   gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be
   decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his
   congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had
   Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated
   messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,
   while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued
   inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander
   to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while
   he brought another battery to bear on the head of the
   advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own
   exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed
   by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column
   wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for
   such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few
   pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any
   prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,
   was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only
   1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise
   acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of
   Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily
   surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar
   attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while
   the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels
   and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against
   Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile
   the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:
   A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to
   withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the
   approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into
   quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining
   fortresses of Flanders."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 52 (volume 6)._

      _J. G. Wilson,
      Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   French conquest of the Austrian provinces.
   Humiliation of Holland.
   The Stadtholdership restored.

   "In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up
   the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.
   Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places
   successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of
   Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,
   reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of
   Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and
   completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides
   went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse
   and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining
   only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some
   negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch
   for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had
   proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of
   Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,
   conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great
   Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had
   gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were
   protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had
   endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and
   active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of
   Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the
   States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April
   17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find
   on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against
   the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories
   'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit
   the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the
   States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count
   Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less
   than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and
   other places. Holland had now very much declined from the
   position she had held a century before. There were indeed many
   large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had
   been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial
   prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and
   steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and
   money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her
   brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt
   of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the
   Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.
   Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been
   engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally
   with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the
   arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the
   satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear
   of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against
   that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the
   republican or aristocratic party had again seized the
   ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William
   Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the
   Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a
   Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,
   however, become highly unpopular.
{2297}
   It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the
   Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach
   of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The
   Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment
   of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the
   example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who
   was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and
   Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,
   Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William
   IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of
   George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French
   threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of
   Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here
   they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a
   bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of
   Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the
   French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl
   [a Swedish general in the French service] carried
   Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring
   (1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,
   notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was
   surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been
   going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been
   appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference
   took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was
   intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it
   undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the
   war were signed the following October.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 3, chapter 12,
      part 4, chapter 1._

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.
   The restored Stadtholdership.
   Forty years of peace.
   War with England and trouble with Austria.
   The razing of the Barriers.
   Premature revolutions.

   In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic
   were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the
   House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of
   Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to
   the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of
   Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a
   line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland
   since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …
   William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had
   done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of
   Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the
   consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for
   his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been
   elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male
   and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The
   constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the
   appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many
   … to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The
   election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his
   people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious
   days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without
   abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he
   was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the
   forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle
   restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the
   stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt
   that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,
   and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well
   for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her
   greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested
   her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of
   peace, … When war again arrived it was again external
   circumstances [connected with the war between England and her
   revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to
   take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,
   an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her
   designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which
   was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies
   both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle
   was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781
   off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a
   success that made them claim a victory, and that at least
   secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed
   caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been
   supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of
   her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were
   restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use
   of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon
   the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be
   apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against
   the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the
   opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and
   treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor
   will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our
   connection with France has made them needless': and the
   fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough
   had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable
   at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;
   and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for
   more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the
   opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from
   the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear
   too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left
   them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to
   navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The
   support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,
   was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he
   had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be
   restored; but the claims which had been put forward were
   abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the
   States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and
   party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and
   had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with
   America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against
   the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,
   and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his
   restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian
   provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result
   in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had
   enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under
   Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000
   men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of
   Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the
   coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century, period 4,
      chapter 1, section 2,
      and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5)._

{2298}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
   French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.
   Recognition of the United States of America.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.
   The Austrian provinces occupied
   by the French revolutionary army.
   Determination to annex them to the French Republic.
   Preparations to attack Holland.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).
   French invasion of Holland.
   Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.
   Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).
   The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.
   French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.
   Holland open to invasion.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.
   Subjugation and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.
   Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.
   Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 17\!7 (MAY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.
   English and Russian invasion.
   Capture of the Dutch fleet.
   Ignominious ending of the expedition.
   Capitulation of the Duke of York.
   Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.
   Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
   A new Constitution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.
   Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.
   Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and
   Napoleon's Decrees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.
   The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.
   Louis Bonaparte made King.
   His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.
   His abdication.
   Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

   "While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had
   no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the
   north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine
   republic in the south. But after the coronation all the
   republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand
   republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,
   if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was
   no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The
   latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it
   was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former
   into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an
   extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a
   deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian
   republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to
   solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis
   [Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis
   became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he
   opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an
   objection the state of his health, to which certainly the
   climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly
   replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than
   live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He
   went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not
   stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved
   by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial
   people, the best way to win their affections was … not to
   adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse
   with England. Hence the first coolness between the two
   brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not
   whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for
   at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of
   the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission
   in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph
   was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of
   Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally
   seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating
   from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,
   the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully
   resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too
   intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion
   in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden
   already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist
   upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed
   augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he
   got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself
   struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change
   his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to
   him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved
   expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over
   all his family in order to make them the instruments of his
   despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of
   policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,
   and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he
   said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade
   with Holland. In this state of things we may consider
   ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body
   I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,
   that my intention is to unite Holland with France.
{2299}
   This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,
   and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the
   plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.
   The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to
   belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the
   interdiction of all trade and communication with England.
   Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,
   seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.
   Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the
   rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges
   of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your
   Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,
   through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on
   the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will
   restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who
   may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at
   the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you
   prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments
   which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it
   extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature
   has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and
   France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland
   and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to
   England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'
   … Here the correspondence between the two brothers was
   suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new
   vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the
   Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called
   his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not
   shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a
   council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the
   interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He
   did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the
   throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general
   silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings
   and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I
   have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be
   kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The
   Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly
   incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to
   the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united
   to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had
   exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom
   Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the
   accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the
   victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,
   permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the
   stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch
   of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.
   Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no
   remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert
   the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd
   of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …
   Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than
   verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,
   whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to
   address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His
   brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months
   after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he
   addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few
   days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more
   phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether
   you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose
   that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you
   should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have
   recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a
   Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains
   there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.
   My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.
   Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been
   repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which
   is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write
   to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel
   alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving
   that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down
   his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a
   message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,
   explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French
   troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de
   Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King
   himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended
   from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the
   people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of
   which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was
   living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother
   had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then
   published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all
   intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite
   in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged
   that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in
   energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the
   empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was
   summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.
   Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and
   Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him
   again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.
   Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The
   Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the
   latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being
   considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and
   the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. A. Bingham,
      Marriages of the Bonapartes,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      _T. C. Grattan,
      History of the Netherlands,
      chapter 22._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.
   The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.
   Java taken by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

{2300}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.
   Expulsion of the French.
   Independence regained.
   Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

   "The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the
   deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch
   Provinces.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous
   pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the
   wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,
   had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,
   from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the
   total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the
   naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had
   occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the
   last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of
   being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system
   which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with
   the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These
   feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to
   have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident
   hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no
   longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown
   down the colossus of French external power, and the approach
   of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the
   people the means of salvation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER) and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

   From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the
   nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small
   number of French troops in the country at once encouraged
   revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the
   whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed
   6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose
   fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.
   Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who
   advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon
   followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew
   from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the
   whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at
   Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to
   circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At
   Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than
   the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial
   authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a
   provisional government with a view to the restoration of the
   ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,
   but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise
   of social rights by a people long habituated to their
   enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in
   the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,
   Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,
   everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal
   rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the
   ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences
   of the highest importance immediately followed this
   uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation
   from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the
   Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked
   on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on
   the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the
   Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had
   concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence
   was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that
   the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were
   not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their
   consternation, and made it general forward movement against
   Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300
   Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received
   with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after
   followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after
   travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the
   latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached
   Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately
   advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he
   made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600
   prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with
   Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the
   23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000
   strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with
   great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up
   with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were
   still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely
   successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to
   Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,
   finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew
   altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the
   orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with
   a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,
   threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the
   Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received
   the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the
   close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on
   Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;
   and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been
   transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to
   those of the Scheldt."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 82 (volume 17)._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
   Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed
   to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.
   The Waterloo campaign.
   Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.
   Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.
   Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
   Siege of Antwerp citadel.

   "In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the
   kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,
   "was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any
   other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in
   the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,
   the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch
   Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted
   Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with
   the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the
   rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that
   Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.
 {2301}
   These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable
   of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for
   themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian
   dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a
   population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000
   persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the
   States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,
   and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch
   pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The
   public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five
   in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was
   almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors
   were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian
   schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of
   Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of
   the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all
   judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.
   … On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the
   elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers
   failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the
   political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union
   was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July
   [at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides
   crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of
   revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine
   years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax
   upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;
   and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch
   members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in
   Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed
   against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the
   interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the
   Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops
   were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded
   to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August
   the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.
   Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the
   people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,
   and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square
   of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,
   the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable
   citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,
   organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was
   preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted
   Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control
   of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had
   unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could
   hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given
   to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;
   victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the
   Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king
   urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation
   of the States-General. The king had received the news of the
   events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at
   once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,
   an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The
   citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops
   would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the
   officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively
   outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make
   terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to
   admit the prince into the city unless he came without his
   soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of
   this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people
   alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium
   had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,
   compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned
   the States-General for the 13th of September. But this
   concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.
   They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded
   independence, the dissolution of the union, and the
   independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had
   originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to
   other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,
   Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the
   example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the
   union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a
   mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;
   and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously
   impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.
   The question of separation was referred to them by the king;
   and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its
   consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which
   their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had
   completed the preliminary discussions which they thought
   necessary the march of events had taken the question out of
   their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke
   out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the
   riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their
   success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,
   who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of
   Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up
   his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his
   command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of
   September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the
   columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining
   possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were
   unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the
   contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,
   unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which
   they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the
   States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the
   union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the
   gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to
   preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the
   Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a
   separate Administration for the southern provinces of the
   kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …
   Arrangements of this character had, however, already become
   impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached
   Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an
   ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the
   immediate convocation of a National Congress. …
{2302}
   On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following
   up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating
   the composition of the National Congress and the
   qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were
   fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the
   Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence
   of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its
   authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the
   five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the
   invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice
   should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops
   should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this
   protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,
   virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which
   the Congress immediately proclaimed."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

   It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for
   Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian
   Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.
   The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice
   of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The
   second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides
   to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by
   dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.
   The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland
   rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who
   expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A
   French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet
   blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,
   December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until
   April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and
   Holland was signed.

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 24-25 and 29._

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
   Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.
   Constitutional and material progress.
   The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

   "After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been
   free to work out its own career of prosperous development.
   King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model
   of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The
   first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between
   Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most
   complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by
   more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,
   numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as
   Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France
   all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing
   Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection
   of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]
   with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted
   the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been
   the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850
   there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and
   nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for
   many years to abolish these and control education; but neither
   party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst
   of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after
   seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial
   crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a
   constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question
   seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.
   had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take
   Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as
   the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

   … Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain
   on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this
   danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical
   parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,
   and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals
   succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over
   State education. The constitution is that of a limited
   monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of
   Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens
   paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was
   extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection
   with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see
   below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize
   Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.
   The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,
   and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of
   1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a
   thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the
   States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by
   the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower
   house by electors having a property qualification. The king's
   ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of
   the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief
   questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy
   debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of
   agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and
   difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage
   28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She
   there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the
   Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in
   South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was
   not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves
   in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of
   Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];
   but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main
   purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour
   system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the
   people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 43._

   "The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals
   exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,
   and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic
   provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely
   absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the
   lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order
   thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious
   strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in
   the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution
   of 1830.
{2303}
   This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and
   liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of
   the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free
   press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form
   associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,
   representative administration—all exactly as in England. How
   was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose
   members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour
   of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also
   the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is
   explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,
   La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest
   influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur
   l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human
   reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance
   of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,
   seminarists, and priests, established the author as an
   unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he
   pretended that the Church would regain her former power by
   separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,
   most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …
   Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.
   They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in
   their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to
   reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals
   united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence
   after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot
   tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in
   its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,
   the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a
   plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would
   inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the
   Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the
   vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,
   and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.
   The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'
   of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William
   and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,
   however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly
   announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed
   of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear
   a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …
   When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as
   regards their political, not their religious opinions. The
   Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events
   by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the
   bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the
   clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from
   a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by
   the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine
   Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,
   of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and
   progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass
   of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country
   populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,
   and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no
   material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend
   liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the
   Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as
   threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to
   fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but
   which they foresee. … The educational question, which has
   been the centre of the political life of the country during
   the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important
   in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is
   everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was
   organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the
   two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders
   of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,
   where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of
   forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess
   schools sufficient for the number of children needing
   instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private
   schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control
   of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,
   was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour
   for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they
   perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests
   over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became
   the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately
   effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must
   provide the schools necessary for the children of its
   inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.
   Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction
   may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in
   the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This
   system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of
   the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the
   communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the
   school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose
   to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,
   now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving
   rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it
   is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …
   In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private
   school in every commune and village not formerly possessing
   one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a
   devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the
   Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have
   been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools
   without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents
   were forbidden to place their children, under pain of
   committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed
   their children still to frequent the communal schools, were
   deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused
   absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.
   All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban
   of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce
   a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary
   instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step
   is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the
   House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in
   progress, and the results of which in this last six months,
   fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by
   what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As
   a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the
   two parties end by justifying the accusations of their
   adversaries.
{2304}
   The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion
   is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the
   Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against
   their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the
   necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in
   Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,
   offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good
   working of Parliamentary government."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Political Condition of Belgium
      (Contemporary Review, April, 1882),
      pages 715-724, with foot-note._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.
   The founding of the Congo Free State.

      See CONGO FREE STATE.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):
A. D. 1887.
   Revision of the Constitution.

   The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the
   Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative
   spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect
   a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage
   qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and
   certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the
   franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,
   which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private
   soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are
   excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States
   General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its
   membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting
   of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In
   the new constitution, the succession to the throne is
   definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct
   heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be
   accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of
   Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess
   Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess
   Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,
   died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to
   succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under
   the regency of her mother.

      _The Statesman's Year-book, 1894._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Annual Register, 1887._

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887._

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.
   The revised Belgian Constitution.
   Introduction of plural Suffrage.

   A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a
   formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise
   from the government of a revision of the constitution and the
   introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,
   elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the
   11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated
   on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on
   every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in
   the same commune for not less than one year, and not under
   legal disqualification. The new constitution is made
   especially interesting by its introduction of a system of
   cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is
   conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five
   years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at
   least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen
   not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to
   the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not
   less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public
   debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are
   given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has
   received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions
   which imply the possession of a superior education. The same
   citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these
   qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.
   On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels
   correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;
   "This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in
   France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and
   the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple
   suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as
   to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a
   profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of
   the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just
   principle that votes must be considered in reference to their
   weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of
   putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which
   disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much
   enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The
   moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract
   theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An
   attempt to introduce proportional representation along with
   the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the
   Senate raised questions hardly less important than those
   connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent
   quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had
   proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political
   representation of the territorial interests of the country, by
   a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social
   forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to
   agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their
   representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have
   made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,
   may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators
   hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of
   its application. This combination rejected, there remained for
   the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,
   to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or
   else by its composition. The Senate and the Government
   preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct
   elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the
   Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by
   specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these
   proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a
   general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate
   consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26
   elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight
   years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a
   property qualification; those popularly elected are required
   to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000
   francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in
   direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the
   voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.
{2305}
   The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned
   according to population and elected for four years, one half
   retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually
   in November, and are required to be in session for at least
   forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,
   and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.
   In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an
   election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the
   Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of
   Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to
   the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven
   ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and
   Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of
   Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.
   The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

   ----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NEUSTRIA.

      See AUSTRASIA.

NEUTRAL GROUND, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEUTRAL NATION, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

   ----------NEVADA: Start--------

NEVADA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.
   Acquisition from Mexico.
   Silver discoveries.
   Territorial and State organization.

   "Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as
   one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of
   the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra
   Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,
   and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with
   Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake
   valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries
   of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican
   territory outside of California, and something more." But
   Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created
   instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the
   Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada
   likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the
   Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of
   western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the
   extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the
   Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had
   rapidly attracted to the region a large population of
   adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate
   territorial organization. Three years later the young
   territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was
   admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 20: Nevada, page 66._

   ----------NEVADA: End--------

NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.

   A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading
   England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken
   prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 25 (volume 3)._

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.

   By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of
   Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to
   Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of
   Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty
   leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the
   said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while
   the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this
   document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to
   include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and
   Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,
   forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy
   Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other
   'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores
   of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a
   county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden
   as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and
   imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the
   year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became
   vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in
   1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to
   make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the
   Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl
   Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have
   reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time
   near the close of the 18th century.

      _G. B. Keen,
      Note on New Albion.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 36-38 and 108-112._

NEW AMSTERDAM.

   The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New
   York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.

   Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the
   city of Buffalo, N. Y.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

   ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------

NEW BRUNSWICK:
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also, CANADA: NAMES.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.
   Included in Nova Scotia.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.
   Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.
   The Family Compact.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.
   Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------

NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

   See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW CARTHAGE.
   The founding of.

      See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.

NEW CASTILE.

   See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

{2306}

   ----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------

NEW ENGLAND.
   [Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given
   elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,
   and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

NEW ENGLAND:
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW ENGLAND:
   The Norumbega of early geographers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.
   First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.
   Coasted by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.
   The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
   Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.
   Coast explored by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.
   Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company
   of Plymouth.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.
   The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.
   Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.
   The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
   Incorporation of the Council for New England,
   successor to the Plymouth Company.
   Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

   "While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London
   company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival
   in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North
   Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new
   letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The
   remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of
   English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,
   the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On
   the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his
   subjects—some of them members of his household and his
   government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English
   nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the
   county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and
   governing New England in America.' The territory, which was
   conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers
   of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the
   48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the
   Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was
   considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage
   employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England
   under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was
   through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the
   crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial
   independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The
   French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing
   lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen
   years before, had appropriated. The English nation was
   incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal
   prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the
   grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament
   was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five
   and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New
   England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to
   King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to
   approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave
   of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,
   Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to
   exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they
   refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual
   authority was soon resigned."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Deane,
      New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 9)._

      _Sir Ferdinando Gorges,
      Brief Narration
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
   The grants made by the Council for New England.
   Settlements planted.
   Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

   Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,
   became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote
   a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and
   sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,
   and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the
   year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned
   into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his
   little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of
   Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed
   Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with
   Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He
   invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a
   scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake
   settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason
   to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the
   Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason
   referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and
   their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to
   Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,
   1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land
   which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his
   countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had
   urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year
   before. The Council for New England, established in November,
   1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or
   to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The
   second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain
   John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land
   lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending
   back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,
   with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason
   called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly
   within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a
   period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New
   England.
{2307}
   On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.
   This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the
   sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,
   extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands
   within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,
   called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined
   seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first
   carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries
   were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.
   Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as
   New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on
   the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,
   was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new
   Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now
   prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all
   ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued
   many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons
   intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to
   David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.
   The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the
   fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The
   Council for New England, in view of the many intended
   settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to
   set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert
   Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was
   appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain
   Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his
   Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,
   1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who
   was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain
   Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war
   between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while
   Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges
   was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at
   Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was
   now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's
   services were required as a naval officer of experience. …
   In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having
   ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be
   Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the
   wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.
   His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with
   France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner
   were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public
   duties than they sprang at once to their old New England
   enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.
   They came to some understanding about a division of their
   Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day
   memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted
   to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine
   lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason
   called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which
   he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.
   … This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought
   to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had
   been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured
   immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land
   in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a
   fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.
   The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous
   lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern
   grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date
   November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New
   Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the
   interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the
   Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and
   received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a
   tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on
   the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and
   Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,
   covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of
   Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east
   side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of
   Lebanon."

      _C. W. Tuttle,
      Captain John Mason
      (Prince Society Publications, 1887),
      pages 12-24._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. F. Haven,
      Grants under the Great Council for New England
      (Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,
      pages 127-162)._

      _J. P. Baxter, editor,
      Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine
      (Prince Society Publications 1890)._

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, page 397, foot-note._

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.
   The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to
   the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
   The new patent to Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS:
      A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The immigration of the Governor and Company of
   Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
   The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.
   Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning
   of its territorial claims by lot.

   "The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly
   fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded
   to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it
   had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be
   overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,
   and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by
   profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its
   common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for
   keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its
   organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a
   resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the
   administration of its domain to a General Governor of his
   appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large
   portion of which by its corporate action had already been
   alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],
   should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of
   the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a
   distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and
   nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to
   transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the
   previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were
   colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John
   Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in
   Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

{2308}

   It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,
   all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …
   everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The
   Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother
   country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New
   England."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

   In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of
   the Council, the divisions were:
   (1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.
   (2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,
   in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and
   (4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.
   (5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.
   (6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,
   by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.
   (7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and
   the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,
   to Lord Edward Gorges.
   (8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the
   Earl of Carlisle.
   (9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,
   to the Duke of Lennox.
   (11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the
   Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 337, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hutchinson,
      History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      volume 1, pages 48-50._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.
   Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.
   The first American constitution.
   The genesis of a state.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.
   Public Registry laws.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

   "The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the
   banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held
   in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,
   who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.
   They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.
   The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were
   restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike
   conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000
   fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate
   the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one
   or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to
   Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who
   invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who
   offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His
   object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites
   against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.
   Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,
   the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or
   later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use
   discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for
   their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated
   and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain
   Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston
   magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to
   account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort
   on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at
   its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in
   Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and
   other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been
   murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging
   on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent
   Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to
   kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the
   women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work
   only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and
   wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this
   expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a
   desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a
   league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as
   if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would
   doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme
   was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly
   intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made
   effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in
   him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly
   league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of
   1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their
   territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered
   at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and
   cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250
   Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot
   'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a
   military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable
   John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from
   Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their
   quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they
   had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not
   very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only
   about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a
   sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason
   in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of
   their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the
   infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and
   fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.
   Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and
   dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their
   own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing
   wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English
   showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the
   wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the
   victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon
   abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,
   in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the
   English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many
   wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,
   allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.
{2309}
   The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of
   them which sought protection among the so-called river
   Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,
   were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,
   being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold
   in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same
   humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants
   to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites
   had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the
   occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of
   later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all
   candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white
   men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of
   Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate
   vengefulness."

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts
      (Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254)._

   "More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and
   less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These
   were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the
   pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit
   their native country again. To make the annihilation of the
   race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in
   Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the
   Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      chapters 2-3._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of John Mason
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.
   The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
   The founding of New Haven Colony.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.
   The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.
   The growth of population and the rise of towns.
   The end of the Puritan exodus.

   "Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New
   England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long
   Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore
   them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their
   transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is
   computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.
   The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …
   Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were
   incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were
   passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,
   Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and
   Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the
   present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act
   was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a
   measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within
   itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to
   that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the
   central power, or the constitution of the United States; and
   the idea of the formation of such communities was probably
   derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a
   parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to
   contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of
   its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at
   this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all
   which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three
   contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the
   Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to
   America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to
   flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and
   strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and
   Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the
   Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New
   Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence
   had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of
   Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.
   There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again
   made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken
   by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the
   privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence
   vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of
   a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and
   magistrates took different sides, grew a very important
   controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which
   resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two
   branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and
   solidity of the political system."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 18._

      See, also,
      TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.
   Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.
   The confederation of the colonies.

   In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United
   Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between
   delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one
   hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.
   Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the
   Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to
   withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two
   commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or
   oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at
   Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to
   have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The
   commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to
   choose a president from among themselves, and everything was
   to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be
   declared by either colony without the consent of the
   commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign
   relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the
   'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one
   great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a
   common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or
   male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive
   criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward
   introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the
   commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the
   practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a
   provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of
   courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have
   full faith and credit in all the others.
{2310}
   The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far
   the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary
   precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,
   though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,
   had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven
   towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the
   old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off
   to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except
   for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by
   Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven
   was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that
   town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to
   commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,
   agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity
   of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New
   Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at
   Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the
   towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been
   added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of
   the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on
   Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of
   Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was
   still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of
   it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the
   next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into
   that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of
   Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because
   the people there ran a different course both in their ministry
   and civil administration.' The same objection applied with
   still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Barry,
      History of Massachusetts,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 8._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.
   The chartering of Providence Plantation,
   and the Rhode Island Union.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.
   Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.
   Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.
   The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.
   The claims of Massachusetts made good.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.
   The Halfway Covenant.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.
   The protection of the Regicides.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
   Under the Restored Monarchy.
   The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.
   The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.
   The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts
   with Connecticut.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.
   King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.

   "The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and
   Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a
   treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English
   should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from
   the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had
   welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had
   opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now
   slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him
   as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had
   narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded
   them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and
   convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The
   principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we
   now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew
   nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put
   under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,
   their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,
   their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till
   they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by
   their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.
   Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.
   There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the
   part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was
   accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing
   what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof
   of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,
   recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not
   but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their
   fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over
   them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should
   be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their
   anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by
   an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their
   unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The
   haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to
   surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,
   in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not
   escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the
   informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were
   identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were
   Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The
   young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,
   eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,
   and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was
   Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to
   have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.
   … What chances had he of success? The English were united;
   the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the
   English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English
   had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they
   could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their
   shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives
   were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the
   Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose
   without hope, and they fought without mercy.
{2311}
   For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first
   alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of
   Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the
   beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from
   Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive
   among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The
   little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the
   Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty
   of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile
   Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the
   commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the
   Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget
   his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole
   frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found
   a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,
   Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening
   their race to a warfare of extermination."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

   "At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have
   been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;
   10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter
   capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,
   numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's
   resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember
   the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a
   war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,
   in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,
   was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice
   taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without
   his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have
   been made by either party; for the whites felt their
   superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and
   Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between
   united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled
   savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never
   faltered or plead from that day forth."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Church,
      History of King Philip's War,
      (Prince Society Publication 1867)._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 3._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).
   King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.
   Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.

   The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had
   already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They
   waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous
   Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston
   to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield
   itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The
   inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information
   of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,
   thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of
   troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed
   for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by
   driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of
   unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an
   intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield
   and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut
   River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and
   several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,
   sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,
   was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.
   Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven
   to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the
   river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at
   Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the
   eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with
   80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the
   wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of
   unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield
   meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small
   stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the
   abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the
   Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a
   brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain
   Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,
   but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was
   abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the
   same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the
   arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,
   now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,
   but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.
   Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the
   Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the
   whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in
   the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still
   remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The
   frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the
   inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread
   and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying
   Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became
   objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with
   realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,
   added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,
   and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object
   of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were
   heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of
   wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded
   as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …
   About the time of the first collision with Philip, the
   Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements
   in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,
   and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their
   hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of
   attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe
   that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured
   an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had
   deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.
   This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very
   questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any
   deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had
   they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The
   Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained
   untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful
   confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former
   provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were
   strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,
   notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and
   shelter to the hostile tribes."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Markham,
      History of King Philip's War,
      chapters 7-8._

      _G. H. Hollister,
      History of Connecticut,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      _M. A. Green,
      Springfield, 1636-1886,
      chapter 9._

{2312}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).
   King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.

   "The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded
   with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their
   compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should
   fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's
   dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal
   Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,
   sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,
   and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged
   to be then under their protection should be surrendered within
   ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut
   River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their
   engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no
   Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful
   in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible
   desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The
   fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them
   reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined
   to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the
   Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of
   Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of
   Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place
   himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn
   day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the
   colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the
   Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of
   their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making
   reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect
   hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'
   … It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts
   at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from
   stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at
   pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham
   to Attleborough on the day before that which had been
   appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth
   levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.
   The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the
   few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned
   by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of
   Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as
   the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,
   and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge
   in it, were put to death. … The place where the
   Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of
   South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly
   direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that
   Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the
   force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to
   information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian
   warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on
   their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their
   skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,
   wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this
   natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a
   barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to
   the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled
   tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being
   protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a
   considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all
   assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],
   breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it
   was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after
   noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they
   had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely
   halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition
   they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts
   troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the
   two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.
   The foremost of the assailants were received with a
   well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed
   or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their
   leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,
   which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three
   hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but
   they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was
   nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed
   together as they were. At length victory declared for the
   English, who finished their work by setting fire to the
   wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150
   wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men
   40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy
   that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and
   material is that on that day the military strength of the
   formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.
   King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.

   "While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of
   things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed
   that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal
   crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.
   Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially
   disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell
   back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February
   the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to
   assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to
   renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months
   the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the
   scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the
   Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,
   1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies
   the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the
   10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into
   the lovely village.
{2313}
   Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph
   Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to
   Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was
   slowly making its way over the difficult roads from
   Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses
   were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and
   children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's
   house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people
   found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were
   driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more
   were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken
   captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the
   minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad
   experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these
   Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster
   was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked
   and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and
   Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a
   dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon
   Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,
   Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and
   Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70
   men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500
   Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate
   captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's
   party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that
   afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing
   two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate
   their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain
   Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near
   the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his
   name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the
   Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had
   burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the
   wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still
   some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of
   March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a
   company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew
   them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.
   Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,
   defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of
   Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over
   to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet
   marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the
   last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to
   400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the
   Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church
   patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the
   Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,
   comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of
   Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol
   Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was
   surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he
   attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,
   where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the
   village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the
   townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By
   midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,
   and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and
   Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been
   simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,
   while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and
   slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men
   … had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women
   and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless
   tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …
   henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New
   England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon
   the frontier."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Hubbard,
      History of the Indian Wars in New England,
      edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1._

      _Mrs. Rowlandson,
      Narrative of Captivity._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.
   The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.
   The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of
   New England" under a royal governor-general.

   "It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,
   New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with
   Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
   country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to
   defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for
   England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was
   opposed to the republican system of confederation. …
   Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his
   colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in
   November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For
   more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice
   hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use
   his master hand on New England. … By the advice of
   Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be
   captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and
   Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts
   Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett
   country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn
   in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for
   those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New
   Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.
   Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed
   by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the
   territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's
   Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or
   afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his
   government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish
   Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      See, also,
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
   New York and New Jersey brought under the
   governor-generalship of Andros.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

{2314}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.
   The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,
   and proclamation of William and Mary.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
   Plymouth absorbed.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The Salem Witchcraft madness.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.
   Oppressive commercial policy of England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
   Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):
   Border incursions by the French and Indians.
   The final conquest of Acadia.

   "But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.
   First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"
   and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.
   "This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and
   preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,
   1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and
   daughter of James II. War was declared by England against
   France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in
   European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in
   American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or
   the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,
   and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,
   Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the
   Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New
   England, war between France and England meant the hideous
   midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning
   hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a
   conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in
   June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many
   of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to
   have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their
   accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the
   tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless
   provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the
   Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,
   500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions
   into the New England settlements. They divided into several
   bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.
   Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,
   but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of
   an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons
   were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the
   town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the
   inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the
   30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few
   people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property
   destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along
   the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was
   … resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as
   usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins
   of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put
   in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,
   convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,
   1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the
   Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,
   450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,
   adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for
   twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the
   English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.
   They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the
   little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English
   trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was
   made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New
   England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,
   but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley
   forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and
   ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel
   Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the
   fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the
   expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council
   at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and
   Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march
   through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New
   Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40
   were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was
   formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and
   five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But
   a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for
   America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel
   Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said
   to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by
   Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next
   year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty
   transports, and one British and four New England regiments for
   the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an
   insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a
   short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving
   and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the
   last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and
   Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was
   re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 8._

   "With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was
   again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James
   I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 108-111._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.
   Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2315}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.
   King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):
   Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

   "The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain
   and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the
   greater number of the British provinces of America no farther
   share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the
   expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which
   his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South
   Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and
   danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile
   relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended
   to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing
   peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;
   while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused
   the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;
   and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of
   hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,
   war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally
   declared by these states against each other.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.

   The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this
   event before it was known in New England, were tempted to
   improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an
   instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which
   accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter
   of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the
   coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,
   which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and
   defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment
   of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape
   Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war
   between the two parent states, conceived the hope of
   destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the
   suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,
   which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).
   Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at
   Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,
   took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and
   houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.
   This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the
   conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in
   Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were
   repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined
   by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of
   Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the
   assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a
   reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the
   garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the
   succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was
   ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a
   pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that
   very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends
   nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which
   excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was
   declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted
   in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were
   reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of
   defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from
   the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to
   prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first
   operations announced, their privateers actively waged a
   harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of
   New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia
   were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of
   returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and
   so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into
   Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected
   that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would
   be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the
   protection of convoy."

      _J. Grahame,
      History [Colonial] of the United States,
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 123-128._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.
   King George's War.
   The taking of Louisburg.

   "Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE
   BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort
   north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,
   carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported
   the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long
   as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source
   of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to
   capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in
   Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.
   Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General
   Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial
   expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six
   days' deliberation and two additional messages from the
   governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.
   A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to
   all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to
   this application, urged by a special messenger from
   Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of
   their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly
   … furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but
   declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long
   debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to
   Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of
   provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten
   eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted
   500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and
   appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second
   in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire
   each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops
   did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief
   burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on
   Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was
   enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were
   profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were
   provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New
   England colonies. The command in chief was given to William
   Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had
   inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father
   in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,
   noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with
   military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The
   enterprise … assumed something of the character of an
   anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of
   Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down
   the images in the French churches.
{2316}
   Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the
   Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the
   arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the
   melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New
   Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut
   came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and
   the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren
   presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before
   Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with
   supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England
   cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.
   As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced
   the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.
   … Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,
   upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that
   cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided
   with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a
   third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble
   and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies
   had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the
   besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June
   17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective
   inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to
   France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the
   same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but
   among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered
   fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In
   the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a
   large number of the remaining Indians of New England,
   persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.
   Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and
   naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by
   additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a
   baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels
   in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear
   admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the
   face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over
   one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever
   engaged."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

   "As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]
   was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.
   England had no other success in that war to compare with it.
   As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this
   exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5)._

   "Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved
   during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

      _R. Johnson,
      History of the French War,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _R. Brown,
      History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14._

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Taking of Louisburg._

      _U. Parsons,
      Life of Sir William Pepperell,
      chapters 3-5._

      _F. Parkman,
      The Capture of Louisbourg
      (Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891)._

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
   King George's War: The mortifying end.
   Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
   and restoration of Louisburg to France.

   "Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now
   offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of
   Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,
   disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly
   their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the
   chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from
   England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when
   joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a
   powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should
   attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late
   as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to
   levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the
   frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the
   plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to
   the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the
   instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,
   and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500
   men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were
   doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,
   they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen
   garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses
   assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other
   colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a
   commissariat, and under no control. After the season for
   active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded
   themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of
   their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition
   to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the
   mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off
   in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the
   centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled
   thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from
   France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a
   subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.
   Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the
   garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas
   Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year
   1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former
   place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of
   the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for
   Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of
   December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great
   distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the
   French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march
   from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and
   surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in
   killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to
   capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the
   French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of
   May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the
   terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,
   1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape
   Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had
   created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their
   commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be
   rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The
   French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,
   on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their
   fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of
   £183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,
   and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the
   orders that were revoked.

      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 19._

      _S. G. Drake,
      Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,
      chapters 6-9._

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5)._

      See, also,
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

{2317}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.
   Dissensions among the colonies at the
   opening of the great French War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany.
   Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,
   and English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.
   Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.
   The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.
   The Stamp Act.
   Its effects and its repeal.
   The Stamp Act Congress.
   The Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;
      and 1767-1768.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.
   The ending of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston under siege.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.
   The War of the Revolution.
   Independence achieved.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
   The Embargo and its effects.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Federalist opposition to the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.
   Change of front on the tariff question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;
      and 1828.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
   The rise of the Abolitionists.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The war for the Union.

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.

   ----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------

NEW FOREST.

   To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion,
   William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors,
   chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of
   country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on
   the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this
   wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William
   Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a
   judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less
   than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by
   fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

      _J. C. Brown,
      Forests of England,
      part 1, chapter 2, D._

NEW FRANCE.

      See CANADA.

NEW GRANADA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES.

   ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.
   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.
   Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.
   First colonies planted.
   The naming of the province.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.
   The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

   According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a
   territory extending northward three miles beyond the
   head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the
   greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that
   of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been
   ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an
   order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and
   Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,
   the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and
   reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason
   had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were
   mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between
   Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of
   jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this
   period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the
   Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the
   Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good
   title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in
   1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers
   favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they
   left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679
   it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts
   Colony, although their grant technically included all lands
   extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack
   river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and
   thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was
   treated as a Royal province, the Governors and
   Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws
   made by the people being subject to his revision."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Barstow,
      History of New Hampshire,
      chapters 2-5._

      _J. Belknap,
      History of New Hampshire,
      volume 1, chapters 2-9._

      _N. Adams,
      Annals of Portsmouth,
      pages 28-64._

      See, also,
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

{2318}

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.
   Outbreak of the Taranteens.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Boundary dispute with New York.
   The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the
   "Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany,
   and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The end of royal government.
   Adoption of a constitution.
   Declaration of Independence.

   The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came
   together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements
   produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a
   convention of the people had been called and was sitting at
   Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly
   proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the
   governor had called by the king's writ from three new
   townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the
   expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was
   assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the
   governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,
   they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the
   offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor
   retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards
   went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had
   adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met
   no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles
   of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing
   act of his administration. It was the last receding step of
   royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The
   government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government
   of the people. … The convention which had assembled at
   Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their
   dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the
   recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,
   which should be a more full representation of the people. They
   sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and
   dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new
   convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of
   government. Having assumed the name of 'House of
   Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],
   and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a
   distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the
   name of a Council." The constitution provided for no
   executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive
   duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of
   safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to
   sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the
   council was president of the executive committee. … On the
   11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,
   and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a
   draught of a declaration of the independence of the united
   colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported
   a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted
   unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in
   congress."

      _G. Barstow,
      History of New Hampshire,
      chapter 9._

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.
   The ending of Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence.
   Peace with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.
   Revision of the State constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.
   Ratification of the Federal constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

   ----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------

   ----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.
   The Fundamental Agreement.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.
   The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.
   Progress and state of the colony.
   The New England Confederation.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

{2319}

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.
   The protection of the Regicides.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.
   Annexation to Connecticut.

   See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.
   The migration to Newark, N.J.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.
   Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
      WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

   ----------NEW HAVEN: End--------

NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   ----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------

NEW JERSEY:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.
   The Dutch in possession.
   The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.
   Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.
   Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.
   Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution
   of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.
   The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

   The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New
   Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers
   of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as
   well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their
   little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to
   establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as
   along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch
   for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong
   trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of
   1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking
   Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made
   active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:
   A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising
   townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put
   themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country
   where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a
   "Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and
   all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year
   1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by
   Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner
   "was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase
   lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that
   rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New
   Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of
   the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,
   and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of
   Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the
   30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,
   which voted to itself authority over the region of the
   Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,
   and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'
   were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'
   The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the
   Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they
   went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing
   protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger
   portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill
   (Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.
   A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.
   This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of
   New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious
   'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between
   this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged
   colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their
   mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England
   intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,
   The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain
   that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,
   "slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part
   of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The
   poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore
   households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The
   ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in
   the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.
   "Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not
   abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for
   redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still
   looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was
   resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new
   expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was
   stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,
   vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England
   shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England
   was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would
   pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than
   half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her
   own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in
   the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.
   When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New
   Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and
   extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one
   to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United
   Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,
   adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole
   proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a
   matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the
   conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,
   and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes
   of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated
   the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.
   Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march
   upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New
   Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."
   Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and
   1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series
   of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the
   conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But
   the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 3, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 57-178.

{2320}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.
   The English occupation and proprietary grant to
   Berkeley and Carteret.
   The naming of the province.
   The Newark immigration from New Haven.

   "Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his
   easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New
   York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,
   1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John
   Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of
   Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,
   all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward
   of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east
   part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath
   upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward
   to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware
   bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch
   of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of
   latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to
   Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land
   is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,
   or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the
   tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of
   Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,
   against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the
   English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently
   soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown
   conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights
   appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;
   the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to
   the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of
   his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to
   procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of
   Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost
   unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they
   exercised every act of government in their own names, because
   they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the
   prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the
   name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,
   they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the
   powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir
   George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the
   10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made
   public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of
   the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every
   of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant
   there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,
   Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a
   commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,
   having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and
   laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the
   summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as
   Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same
   year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of
   this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it
   was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined
   and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo
   town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …
   Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at
   Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,
   to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite
   settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable
   terms offered, the province soon received large additions to
   its population."

      _W. A. Whitehead,
      East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments
      (New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,
      volume 1), period 2._

   "In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New
   England offering to settlers every civil and religious
   privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately
   visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven
   property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a
   settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of
   Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to
   locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,
   the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under
   the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into
   the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little
   colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the
   name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English
   home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New
   Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost
   bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,
   the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The
   planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be
   annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to
   such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four
   men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23
   were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,
   Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of
   families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to
   make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New
   Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the
   banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the
   methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what
   it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but
   came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark
   was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

      _C. H. Levermore,
      The Republic of New Haven,
      chapter 4, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,
      volume 1._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
   The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and
   division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.
   The free constitution of West Jersey.

   In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold
   his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.
   John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were
   the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors
   about the division of their property, and William Penn, who
   afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen
   arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the
   satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from
   London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a
   small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that
   came to New Jersey with immigrants.
{2321}
   The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,
   landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.
   This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named
   Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently
   established in West Jersey."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 1._

   In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret
   taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West
   Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation
   of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by
   him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.
   Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few
   of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,
   disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means
   to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night
   [1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New
   York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he
   was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,
   and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with
   directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The
   authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and
   Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret
   could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts
   at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William
   Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it
   for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their
   management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were
   constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed
   of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and
   then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument
   established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,
   and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,
   to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,
   settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,
   grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary
   for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The
   new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all
   the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,
   Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and
   a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each
   Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,
   inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm
   instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come
   down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …
   our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or
   unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to
   those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,
   or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition
   of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control
   is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

      _C. Parker,
      Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the
      Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey._

   The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as
   established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at
   Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the
   Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this
   line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West
   Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,
   and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In
   order to establish a government for the Province of West
   Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore
   and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,
   who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the
   proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of
   August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction
   with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to
   conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with
   instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a
   settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his
   portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared
   himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore
   became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this
   difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The
   original plan of the government was devised by William Penn
   and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all
   the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first
   published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and
   Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of
   the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution
   declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or
   authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;
   and that no person or persons within the Province should be in
   any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or
   privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship
   toward God in matters of religion. … That all the
   inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend
   court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that
   Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert
   manner.' … The executive authority of the government was
   lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first
   by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the
   further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by
   the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March
   of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in
   1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this
   instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the
   proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the
   language of the fundamental law."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. A. Whitehead,
      East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,
      pages 66-99._

      _Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,
      volume 1._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.
   Final recovery by the English.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.
   Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.
   Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.
   Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

   "In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the
   people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it
   was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had
   gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,
   1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered
   their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had
   been accepted.
{2322}
   In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries
   of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the
   dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating
   to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York
   and New England, under the government of Andros. At the
   revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the
   sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the
   legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the
   domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not
   their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery
   of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.
   A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with
   little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a
   settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New
   Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,
   in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of
   magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were
   protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there
   is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to
   exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …
   The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference
   of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular
   government had ever been established,' resolved to resign
   their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they
   wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:
   but King William, though he had against his inclination
   approved triennial parliaments for England, would never
   consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of
   Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.
   The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,
   was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its
   possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The
   surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being
   completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and
   the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,
   who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.
   Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the
   next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never
   again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,
   and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the
   form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the
   crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the
   royal council and the representatives of the people. … The
   freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of
   their liberties."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. O. Raum,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.
   Queen Anne's War.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.
   End of royal government.
   Adoption of a State Constitution.

   In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin
   Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the
   Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately
   royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony
   refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,
   when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental
   Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;
   and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general
   Congress, but appointed a "general committee of
   correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the
   following year, called together, at Trenton, a second
   Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the
   "Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full
   authority of all the branches of the government, providing for
   the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out
   the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin
   convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No
   important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December
   the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d
   of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the
   end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal
   authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey
   had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in
   the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On
   the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a
   constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to
   abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and
   therefore provided in the last article of this constitution
   that the instrument should become void whenever the king
   should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to
   administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the
   constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.
   But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress
   assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New
   Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal
   authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of
   Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name
   and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,
   however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by
   order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was
   released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When
   the State government was organized under the new constitution,
   the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of
   all persons who opposed its authority."

      _J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. F. Gordon,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 12._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Siege of Boston.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

{2323}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The battle ground of Washington campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.
   Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.
   British raids from New York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.
   The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.
   Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

   ----------NEW JERSEY: End----------

NEW MADRID, The capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

   ----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------

NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
   The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

   "While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on
   in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government
   [of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico
   and California, by means of expeditions organized on the
   remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to
   the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have
   the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New
   Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the
   oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,
   and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we
   consult a map of the United States it is seen that the
   thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of
   the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the
   Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen
   that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,
   because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and
   would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of
   the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of
   the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that
   Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it.
   Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to
   California, an exceptional importance. These considerations
   weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the
   notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines
   undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With
   this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in
   June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a
   battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico,
   Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval
   forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that
   country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper
   Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old
   trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos,
   without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time
   seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of
   August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were
   unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was
   declared annexed to the United States. Either the home
   government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or,
   having decided to reserve all its strength for the main
   conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing
   a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's
   Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe,
   September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under
   Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in
   Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe,
   while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his
   troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit
   quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their
   allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an
   outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was
   met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us
   without striking a blow. This information decided General
   Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a
   few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now
   Arizona for the Pacific."

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      pages 251-255._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. O. Ladd,
      History of the War with Mexico,
      chapters 9-12._

      _P. St. G. Cooke,
      The Conquest of New Mexico and California._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 12, chapter 17._

      _H. O. Ladd,
      The Story of New Mexico,
      chapter 16._

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
   Cession to the United States.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850.
   Territorial organization.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894.
   Prospective admission to the Union.

   A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed
   by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence
   of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it
   in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the
   scantily populated territory into a state were then checked
   for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for
   organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again
   passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a
   favorable vote in the Senate.

   ----------NEW MEXICO: End----------

NEW MODEL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NEW NETHERLAND.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NEW ORANGE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

   ----------NEW ORLEANS: Start--------

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1718.
   The founding of the city.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763.
   Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris,
   and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769.
   Revolt against the Spanish rule.
   A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

{2324}

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1785-1803.
   Fickle treatment of American traders.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800; and 1798-1803.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804.
   Transferred to France and sold to the United States.
   Incorporation as a city.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1789-1803; and 1804-1812.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815.
   Jackson's defense of the city and great victory.
   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (April).
   Farragut's capture of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (May-December).
   The rule of General Butler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1866.
   Riot and massacre.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

   ----------NEW ORLEANS: End--------

NEW PLYMOUTH.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

NEW SCOTLAND.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

   ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: Start--------

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1850.
   Separation of the Colony of Victoria.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859.
   Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into
   the Colony of Queensland.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1890.
   Characteristics.
   Comparative view.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

   ----------NEW SOUTH WALES: End--------

NEW SPAIN:
   The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to
   the province won by Cortes.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

NEW STYLE.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NEW SWEDEN.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW WORLD, The:
   First use of the phrase.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

   ----------NEW YORK: Start--------

NEW YORK:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c.,
      HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1498.
   Probable discovery of the Bay by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1524.
   The Bay visited by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1606.
   Embraced in the territory granted by King James I.
   of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609.
   Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson,
   in the service of Holland.

   "Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly
   skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or
   other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a
   great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the
   unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy,
   high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English
   sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch
   pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson,
   on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given,
   did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed
   and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact
   it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many
   other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson
   soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait;
   and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the
   shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of
   navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having
   reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her
   bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid
   current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in
   October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland,
   where the news of his discovery excited much interest among
   the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were
   bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships
   across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with
   the savages and to explore and report further upon the
   country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed
   Hudson, was Adrian Block."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      New York,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Juet,
      Journal of Hudson's Voyage
      (New York Historical Society Collection,
      series 2, volume 1)._

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609-1615.
   Champlain and the French in the North.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.
   Possession taken by the Dutch.
   Named New Netherland.

   "The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices
   Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson
   River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious
   contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged
   determination against Spain since 1566. …

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and after.

   It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned,
   after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of
   people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived
   of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement,
   that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the
   public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The
   commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly
   discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe.
   The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered
   indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they
   had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were
   to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest
   baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these
   considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam
   merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the
   Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The
   success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus
   to the spirit of enterprise.
{2325}
   New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the
   States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two
   ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look
   again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of
   Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as
   several private merchants and citizens, applied for
   information to the States of Holland and West Friesland,
   relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and
   the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These
   ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to
   that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much
   importance was the country now considered, that the traders
   erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river,
   for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable
   position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily
   perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became
   the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that
   locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the
   superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his
   trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the
   neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and
   thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable
   produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the
   infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check.
   Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November
   of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement
   which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at
   the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking
   after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the
   Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself
   and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor
   of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of
   his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were
   taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to
   the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the
   States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who
   should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making
   four voyages thither before others could have admission to the
   traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and
   activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to
   Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships:
   namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the
   Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and
   Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was
   called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was
   commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three
   last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately
   on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of
   the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his
   arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally
   burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38
   feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when
   completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own
   untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of
   European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block
   proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He
   sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The
   Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East
   Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or
   'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he
   discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain."
   Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River,
   which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian
   village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining
   the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to
   one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After
   exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there
   fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these
   navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey
   was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther
   south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of
   which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward,
   being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis;
   while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of
   the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of
   the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been
   transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn
   of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been
   employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure
   to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus
   explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the
   27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague,
   who laid before the States General a report of their
   discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the
   newly explored countries, which now, for the first time,
   obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor
   of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit
   and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and
   45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the
   first discoverers."

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 4-12._

      _B. Fernow,
      New Netherland
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 8)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621.
   The first trading monopoly succeeded
   by the Dutch West India Company.

   "It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the
   peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the
   Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively
   called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at
   the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his
   first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to
   have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed
   [1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of
   the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To
   compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was
   immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently
   affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at
   Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on
   an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island.
   But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by
   sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had
   obtained from the States General the exclusive right of
   trading for three years to New Netherland, though united
   together in one company to secure the grant of their charter,
   were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in
   a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were
   to enjoy in common. …
{2326}
   On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the
   Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation.
   Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had
   been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the
   factors of the company to push their explorations further into
   the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of
   the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of
   the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic,
   and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been
   covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the
   Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship
   and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617].
   Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants
   who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to
   the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges,
   the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the
   States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a
   comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a
   compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the
   long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was
   finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India
   Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and
   defend New Netherland."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1615-1664.
   Dutch relations with the Iroquois.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, THEIR CONQUESTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1620.
   Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.
   Early operations of the Dutch West India Company.
   The purchase of Manhattan Island.
   The Patroons and their colonies.

   "When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces]
   with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the
   charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before
   the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the
   great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the
   States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and
   privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war
   and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited
   to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of
   America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever
   found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to
   colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially
   were committed the care and the colonization of New
   Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its
   organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by
   erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam],
   and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at
   Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30
   families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate
   the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of
   their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of
   furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at
   the expiration of their term of service, and no other
   colonists were brought out for several years. The Company
   found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting
   out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish
   treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large
   dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all
   Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in
   goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same
   time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity,
   including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The
   Company was now possessed of lands enough for the
   accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and
   only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did
   not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new
   line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and
   Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies
   within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as
   Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the
   Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of
   fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He
   who established such a colony might associate with himself
   other persons to assist him in his work, and share the
   profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in
   whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position,
   such as the administration of justice, the appointment of
   civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and
   the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to
   the West India Company, and to the States General, but
   independent of control within the limits of his own territory.
   The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists
   were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years,
   rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When
   their term of service expired, they were free to renew the
   contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The
   privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the
   members of the company, but in about ten years were extended
   to others. The directors of the company were the first to
   improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and
   potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents
   of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of
   land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in
   July following other tracts on both sides of the river,
   including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director
   Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson
   opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A
   few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and
   became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also
   formed a partnership with several of his brother directors,
   among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of
   planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be
   known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a
   clearer perception of what was required for such a work than
   the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance
   with the charter, and on business principles. Before the
   colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places
   and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed,
   superintendents and overseers of the various departments were
   selected, and all were instructed in their duties.
   The number of the first colonists was respectable.
{2327}
   They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families.
   On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the
   river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed,
   houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case
   the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and
   individual rights respected. They were not long in settling
   down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists
   arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In
   1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died,
   over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a
   territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another
   tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India
   Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men,
   and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were
   much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to
   their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous,
   and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the
   Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its
   existence mainly to its management, but largely to its
   situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient
   for the Indian trade."

      _G. W. Schuyler,
      Colonial New York,
      introduction, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Elting,
      Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson,
      pages 12-16._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      See, also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1629-1631.
   Dutch occupancy of the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.
   Introduction of public registry.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634.
   The city named New Amsterdam.

   Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became
   governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on
   Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and
   was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue
   of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was
   subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the
   commercial monopoly of the whole province."

      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 73._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634-1635.
   Dutch advance posts on the Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1635.
   Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave,
   on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638.
   Protest against the Swedish settlement on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
   The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade.
   Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

   "The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers
   away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation
   checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller
   [Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily
   from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with
   everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment
   led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession
   of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring,
   and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant
   of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council,
   and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of
   order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere
   trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The
   patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be
   overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing
   evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly
   enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but
   they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for
   them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and
   solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They
   threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and
   promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a
   small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of
   emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten
   Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship
   filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and
   still more from New England. Men of property and standing
   began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine
   well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy
   progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company
   [1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile
   and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges,
   benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose
   colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and
   grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade
   proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the
   Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already
   begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened
   to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in
   return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the
   Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and
   all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was
   made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first
   tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then
   offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had
   destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man
   was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned
   immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned
   the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of
   twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the
   twelve," as they were called, failed to control their
   governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them,
   whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack
   upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been
   driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks,
   and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The
   wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors,
   were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without
   mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to
   Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This
   massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the
   neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were
   laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller
   settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared.
{2328}
   A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer,
   and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians
   burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was
   broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's
   life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and
   eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public
   affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command
   of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had
   lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with
   great vigor and success on Long Island and against the
   Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway
   was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and
   ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period,
   until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter
   Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the
   Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace.
   Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he
   was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the
   colony. The results of his miserable administration were
   certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had
   perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements
   and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony
   had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In
   Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal
   hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the
   South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and,
   disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded
   strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were
   at a low ebb."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 16._

   A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken
   by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous
   task in the administration of the government of a province
   than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at
   command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case
   of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support.
   Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers
   crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and
   unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the
   alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the
   home government, and having a large territory to defend and
   two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of
   his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and
   such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in
   continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a
   state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and
   independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were
   constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's
   occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and
   independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government,
   kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were
   made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that
   Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical
   trouble with his administration was that he was under a
   divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the
   States-General, and a commercial Director, as the
   representative of a great company of traders. The
   States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its
   independence and watching the balance of European power to
   give supervision to the affairs of a province of small
   political importance—while the Company, looking upon its
   colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the
   profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true
   interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support.
   … Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by
   a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was
   deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until
   satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the
   period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him
   for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians,
   and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But
   this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false
   judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather
   than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy
   displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony
   would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence,
   rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be
   imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor
   want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his
   province. He has been generally condemned, but without
   sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced,
   the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities
   incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and
   mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of
   outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and
   receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject
   of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of
   attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though
   disastrous, was not dishonorable."

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Administration of William Kieft
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8._

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 2, chapter 7
      and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1640-1643.
   Expulsion of New Haven colonists from the Delaware.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664.
   Peter Stuyvesant and his administration.

   Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded
   Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May,
   1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial
   reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal
   professions of interest and regard. He had for several years
   been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at
   Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery.
   Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at
   St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for
   surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission,
   he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands.
   Immediately on his accession he organized a representative
   Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to
   him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to
   various important provisions for the regulation of trade and
   commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians
   so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and
   goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual
   protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

      _S. S. Randall,
      History of the State of New York,
      period 2, chapter 5._

{2329}

   "The powers of government—executive, legislative, and
   judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive,
   and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and
   commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided
   all important controversies. … He directed churches to be
   built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and
   where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public
   lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed
   no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction;
   and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels
   of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose.
   In the management of these complicated affairs the Director
   developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of
   restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life
   as to his personal character. … During the whole of his
   predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going
   on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the
   inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among
   the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for
   themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to
   which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in
   New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after
   Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director
   and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously
   considered their rights, gave indication of serious
   disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in
   1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of
   government. An election was therefore held, at which the
   inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia
   chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and
   respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of
   the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men'
   as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties
   were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's
   Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a
   considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The
   subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of
   quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New
   England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not
   least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no
   means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them.
   The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council
   either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects
   which existed in the administration of civil and criminal
   justice."

      _H. R. Stiles,
      History of the City of Brooklyn,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the
   surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his
   conduct … and … found himself the object of serious
   charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country
   in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his
   chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and
   in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified
   deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the
   success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his
   talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English
   colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on
   these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of
   perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of
   judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his
   contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would
   afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like
   panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can
   review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] …
   and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists,
   without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a
   character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained
   by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind
   so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting
   civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his
   public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the
   character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer
   institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and
   regard."

      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 6, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Remonstrance of New Netherlands
      (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 275-317);
      also volume 13._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 9._

      _B. Fernow,
      Peter Stuyvesant
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.
   The adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut.

   To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and
   English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long
   Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor
   Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and
   opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by
   instructions from his company to press no claim to the
   extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in
   America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the
   appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named
   Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a
   settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points
   in dispute as having occurred under the administration of
   Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their
   lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in
   1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of
   the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line
   between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within
   ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided
   for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound,
   which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between
   Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and
   that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line
   across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the
   sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a
   recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the
   Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a
   boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be
   prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has
   pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side
   of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and
   indicative of treachery on the part of their two English
   agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his
   instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the
   best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated
   September 19, 1650."

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut
      (American Commonwealths),
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. B. O'Callaghan,
      History of New Netherland,
      book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2)._

      _C. W. Bowen,
      The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      _Division of the Boundary in America
      (Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 1, pages 541-577)._

{2930}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1653.
   The grant of municipal government to New Amsterdam.

   "An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the
   annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of
   February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of
   the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named
   its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was
   nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It
   came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few,
   and even those were subsequently hampered by the most
   illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant
   made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal
   his intention of making all future municipal appointments,
   instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens,
   as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers
   distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence
   did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should
   often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them
   in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the
   church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these
   worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the
   City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying
   their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to
   the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony,
   secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished
   attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it
   had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters,
   Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five
   schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard
   Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. T. Valentine,
      History of the City of New York,
      chapter 5._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1654.
   Threatened attack from New England.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1655.
   Subjugation of the Swedes on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The English conquest.
   New Amsterdam becomes New York.

   The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English
   after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost
   openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the
   Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New
   Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally
   carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so
   extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of
   the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of
   £10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and
   the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The
   next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to
   the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as
   little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England
   colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American
   soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means
   to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the
   King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the
   Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown,
   from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a
   central authority strongly established over the territory
   covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be
   extended over the colonies on either side which were governed
   under limitations and with privileges directly secured by
   charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon
   was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling
   in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This
   covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and
   the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long
   Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of
   Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by
   Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine
   territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and
   the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west
   side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay,
   together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
   The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut
   River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the
   Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of
   Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs,
   deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this
   domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent
   with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter
   granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for
   Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners
   should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each
   colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners
   for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King
   established a royal commission, consisting of four persons
   recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions
   were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the
   prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which
   Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a
   commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in
   the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,
   Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. …
   To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of
   taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered
   by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the
   delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title
   under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the
   tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news
   of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and
   explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador]
   as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the
   reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the
   English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim
   so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a
   declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little
   interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a
   trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post
   at best.
{2331}
   The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but
   its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources
   and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the
   English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third
   of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies
   of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels
   Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for
   Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls
   and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military
   aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon
   Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a
   rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail
   with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside
   of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place
   of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by
   militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New
   Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard
   of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),
   whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.
   Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The
   folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by
   which the Director-General sought to save something of his
   dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between
   the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation
   confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,
   the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.
   The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the
   29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the
   city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on
   taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the
   civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam
   be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,
   in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the
   time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its
   magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not
   exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the
   point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new
   government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson
   under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort
   Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a
   title of the Duke of York."

      _J. A. Stevens,
      The English in New York
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 10)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      _Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volumes 2-3._

      See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The separation of New Jersey,
   by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   The annexation of the Delaware settlements.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.
   The province as the English received it.
   Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

   "In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,
   New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have
   consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population
   was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,
   who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The
   inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.
   High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of
   flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,
   while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The
   treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens
   who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in
   advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here
   by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high
   civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to
   the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English
   in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice
   conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were
   protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for
   an instant presume that the institutions which half a century
   had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the
   English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to
   suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as
   gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro
   slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only
   under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of
   religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed
   Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several
   occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into
   consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,
   to some extent, a principle of representative government was
   at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with
   the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too
   much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It
   must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a
   self-governing people and accustomed to that most important
   principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In
   common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy
   independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that
   these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation
   to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was
   not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience
   demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly
   is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the
   whole, it must be conceded that the company's government
   introduced here much that was good and accomplished little
   that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the
   English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of
   America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,
   well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious
   freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced
   with all that was good in the system introduced by the
   English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It
   is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political
   authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into
   New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet
   it requires a very much more extended examination of original
   sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just
   how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at
   a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed
   the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

      _R. L. Fowler,
      Constitutional and Legal History, of New York
      in the 17th Century
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 14)._

{2332}

   "Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony
   under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its
   population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of
   the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily
   with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,
   attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of
   flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are
   descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English
   occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar
   in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of
   honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In
   1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,
   Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der
   Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van
   Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and
   Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck
   is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in
   1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor
   from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were
   aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett
   Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van
   Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan
   Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham
   Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In
   1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de
   Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is
   mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,
   Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John
   Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.
   During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names
   are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the
   beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur
   only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their
   leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large
   proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English
   colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch
   foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing
   only after the English occupation. This is true, with the
   qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after
   that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.
   … Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the
   end of the seventeenth century, after which time English
   contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying
   towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson
   River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In
   New York city the large English immigration, the requirements
   of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and
   English families had given to English the predominance by the
   year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the
   peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until
   1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom
   of registering transfers of real estate has been received from
   the same source."

      _B. Tuckerman,
      Peter Stuyvesant,
      chapter 4._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.
   The Duke's Laws.

   "At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March
   1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor
   Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's
   authority, a body of laws for the government of the new
   province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,
   'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's
   American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many
   traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The
   code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined
   'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious
   Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have
   come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of
   New England,"

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Duke of York's Book of Laws,
      compiled and edited by S. George, et al._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.
   French invasions of the Iroquois country,
   under Courcelles and Tracy.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
   The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.

   The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one
   of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual
   declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became
   formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,
   ingloriously for England although she retained her American
   conquests.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666

   Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of
   Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to
   betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a
   perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

   During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis
   Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an
   unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been
   sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy
   in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico
   he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under
   the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two
   commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where
   they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in
   spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy
   them to England. As they were going out of the James River,
   the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received
   information from one of its passengers which satisfied them
   that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few
   days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships
   of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled
   by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy
   Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On
   the following day the city, which could make no defense, and
   all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their
   countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of
   New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open
   enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of
   capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was
   granted by the victors. …
{2333}
   Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient
   New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary
   government in New York, with that of his grantees in New
   Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the
   Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered
   American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful
   war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected
   with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of
   course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held
   to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to
   the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long
   Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the
   province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.
   … It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a
   provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen
   or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky
   accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;
   upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest
   until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed
   Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.
   "Colve's commission described his government as extending from
   15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island
   and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to
   Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in
   1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate
   territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.
   … The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New
   Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The
   metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in
   several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition
   was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of the State of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 14-15._

      _Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 2._

      _Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.
   Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.
   Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of
   Connecticut.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.
   Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the
   Iroquois country.

   "Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in
   procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in
   1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,
   at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or
   council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel
   Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the
   Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even
   asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon
   their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most
   readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become
   necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe
   it into an act of at least partial submission to English
   authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians
   themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,
   that might protect them against the French."

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,
      volume 1, page 15._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.
   French invasions of the Iroquois country
   under De La Barre and De Nonville.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.
   The Dongan Charter.

   "The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the
   'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by
   Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one
   of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,
   sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.
   Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save
   in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which
   the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The
   instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great
   city."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 317._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Benjamin,
      Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.
   Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.

   In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made
   Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new
   commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of
   all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory
   and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country
   between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,
   thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of
   government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to
   reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the
   administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor
   was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of
   whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in
   Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the
   government, and might pass laws, which however were, within
   three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy
   Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was
   to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the
   whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,
   agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      _J. R. Brodhead, editor
      Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,
      volume 3, pages 537-554._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.
   The Revolution.
   Jacob Leisler and his fate.

   News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from
   the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,
   William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in
   February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the
   public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the
   authority of the latter occurred until after the people of
   Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,
   Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and
   casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a
   little later by like action in New York. Two parties had
   quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,
   the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former
   embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,
   the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,
   and the municipal authorities.
{2334}
   The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the
   citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the
   imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been
   overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was
   invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the
   legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might
   delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the
   principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German
   by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five
   train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one
   of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous
   opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and
   determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by
   the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced
   great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of
   citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to
   become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel
   Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly
   for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the
   'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert
   Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of
   the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and
   champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was
   formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.
   They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested
   him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief
   magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.
   This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained
   to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the
   public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he
   proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary
   sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a
   letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had
   done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to
   assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but
   departed presently for England, "after formally giving
   authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his
   absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made
   known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and
   the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several
   counties of the province to elect their civil and military
   officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The
   counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually
   and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became
   greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who
   was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'
   as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the
   indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was
   compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other
   councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they
   acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an
   independent government, and claimed to be the true and only
   rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained
   by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,
   Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of
   their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his
   mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York
   by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,
   directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to
   such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the
   peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of
   New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to
   Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and
   attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.
   "From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed
   an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler
   justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the
   people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at
   once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed
   councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,
   and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war
   with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed
   Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of
   1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in
   the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take
   possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the
   governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme
   power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the
   province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of
   the fort, without deigning to show the governor his
   credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the
   troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to
   take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city
   was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and
   'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in
   March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort
   and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of
   Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious
   action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also
   Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a
   charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and
   sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne
   received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the
   governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As
   Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they
   intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature
   to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before
   the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and
   Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became
   sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly
   stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he
   died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,
   enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high
   position in history of a patriot and martyr."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      The Empire State,
      chapter 8._

   "Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,
   but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are
   imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the
   utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an
   opposition led by persons who held office under King James.
   They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the
   office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity
   as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a
   patriot."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 3._

{2335}

   "The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.
   … And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a
   martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,
   aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as
   one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors
   of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a
   traitor."

      _W. Dunlap,
      History of the New Netherlands,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Hoffman,
      The Administration of Jacob Leisler
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 3)._

      _Papers relating to
      Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration
      (O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2)._

      _Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration
      (New York Historical Society Collection, 1868)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.
   King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.
   Abortive expedition against Montreal.
   French plans of conquest.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.
   Bradford's press set up.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.
   Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.
   Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.
   Capture of Port Royal.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.
   Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

      See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.
   Conflicts of royal governors with the people.
   Zenger's trial.
   Vindication of the freedom of the press.

   "In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
   and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
   York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
   assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
   did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
   lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
   free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
   and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
   Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
   transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
   chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
   time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
   assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
   Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
   governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
   Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
   had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
   contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
   things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
   was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
   and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
   broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
   sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
   at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
   To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
   Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
   insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
   the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
   'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
   England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
   displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
   of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
   sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
   newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
   November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
   printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
   apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
   afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
   council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
   libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
   attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
   took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
   ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
   the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
   disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
   the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
   penetration, and application to business. All the central
   colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
   the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
   Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
   Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
   cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
   the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
   the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
   jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
   they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
   not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
   the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
   guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
   the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
   defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
   press.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
      part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Grahame,
      History of the United States (Colonial),
      book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

      _W. L. Stone,
      History of New York City,
      2d period, chapter 2._

      _E. Lawrence,
      William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
   The first Newspaper.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
   How the Iroquois placed themselves
   under the protection of England.

   "Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
   Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
   received from England, and all the injuries that had been
   inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
   to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
   Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
   of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
   They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
   King of England for help to regain their country from the
   French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
   surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
   their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
   their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
   represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
   chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
   confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
   Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
   territory to be subject to Great Britain."

      _W. Dunlap,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, page 289._

{2336}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
   The pretended Negro Plot.
   Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

   In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
   bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
   the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
   8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
   fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
   burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
   indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
   reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
   formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
   to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
   confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
   robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
   turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
   the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
   lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
   turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
   counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
   evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
   sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
   passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
   save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
   convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
   seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
   then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
   against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
   a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
   to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
   executed."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 26._

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
   Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
   The founding of King's College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
   The struggle for Vermont.
   The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
   and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
   The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
   Abortive expedition against Niagara.
   Braddock's defeat.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
   The French and Indian War:
   English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
   The French and Indian War:
   Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
   Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
   The French and Indian War:
   Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
   The French and Indian War:
   Completed English conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.
   Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
   The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
   The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
   The conflict of parties.
   The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
   and the Committee of Sixty.

   "In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
   Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
   ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
   ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
   gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
   … An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
   engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
   connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
   'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
   Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
   was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
   Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
   Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
   the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
   20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
   with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
   year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
   others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
   proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
   15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
   followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
   assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
   landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
   and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
   out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
   Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
   before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
   the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
   enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
   the ship Samson on the 12th.
{2337}
   Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
   Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
   effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
   heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
   been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
   and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
   concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
   compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
   committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
   more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
   been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
   condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
   who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
   Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
   acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
   lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
   Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
   seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
   inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
   run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
   considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
   Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
   advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
   Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
   … A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
   twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
   approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
   colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
   nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
   Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
   Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
   had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
   again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
   organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
   Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
   to another communication just received from Boston, by the
   famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
   that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
   of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
   not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
   but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
   advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
   the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
   exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
   suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
   rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
   was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
   a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
   Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
   to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
   for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
   and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
   the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
   the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
   committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
   substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
   This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
   expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
   opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
   unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
   at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
   clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
   the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
   'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      chapter 2._

   "The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
   object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
   the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
   enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
   Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
   organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
   dissolved."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, page 768._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Q. Leake,
      Life and Times of General John Lamb,
      chapter 6._

      _J. A. Stevens,
      The Second Non-importation Agreement
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
   Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
   The first provincial Convention held.

   "The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
   the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
   disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
   council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
   chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
   King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
   representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
   moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
   rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
   there was an elective council and an annually elected
   assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
   power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
   heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
   their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
   integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
   obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
   of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
   intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
   Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
   ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
   to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
   by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
   of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
   store several days without them. While they were on their way
   to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
   seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
   retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
   in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
   the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
   to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
   Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
   appeal to the people.
{2338}
   The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
   loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
   popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
   freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
   consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
   representatives from such of the counties of the province as
   should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
   being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
   the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
   loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
   subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
   to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
   provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
   [April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
   Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
   Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
   the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
   in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
   to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
   assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
   consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
   of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
   delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
   convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
   convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
   provincial convention in New York—the first positive
   expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
   province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
   delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
   Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
   Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
   Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
   full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
   other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
   measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
   preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
   privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
   Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
   session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
   way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
   adjournment."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapters 17-18._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Dunlap,
      History of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 29_.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action upon the news.
   Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
   Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
   The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
   The end of royal government.
   Flight of Governor Tryon.

   "On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
   Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
   hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
   Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
   the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
   together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
   arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
   formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
   Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
   city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
   custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
   vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
   became necessary to organize some provisional government for
   the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
   of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
   Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
   charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
   obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
   the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
   of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
   popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
   the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
   more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
   command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
   their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
   persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
   The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
   their colleagues to present a placable address to
   Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,
   and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve
   the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put
   the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey
   the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting
   fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered
   New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take
   command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress
   received him with a cautious address. Despite their
   patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing
   to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they
   desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights
   of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington
   quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial
   militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England
   since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands
   of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume
   it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought
   almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work
   such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.
   The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with
   expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of
   the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.
   … Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the
   Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to
   the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly
   raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the
   seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and
   denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not
   long before the two powers came into collision." This was
   brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,
   directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were
   exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat
   from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded
   the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.
   "Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but
   finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the
   pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he
   determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the
   'Asia.'"

      _Mary L. Booth,
      History of the City of New York,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Q. Leake,
      Life and Times of General John Lamb,
      chapter 7._

{2339}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
   Flight of Governor Tryon.
   New York City occupied by Washington.
   Battle of Long Island.
   Defeat of the American army.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for the city.
   Washington's retreat.
   The British in possession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
      and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
   Adoption of a Constitution and
   organization of a State government.
   Religious freedom established.

   "After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies
   proceeded to form State governments, by adopting
   constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the
   1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the
   Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government
   was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,
   were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The
   committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John
   Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,
   Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John
   Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel
   Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the
   chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the
   Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the
   stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and
   winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then
   at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,
   and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they
   continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the
   committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the
   12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It
   was under consideration in the Convention for more than a
   month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of
   April. Under it a State government was established by an
   ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first
   session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston
   in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay
   and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for
   Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.
   But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the
   situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be
   neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in
   all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and
   Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General
   George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by
   successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for
   three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the
   Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was
   appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and
   John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert
   Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New
   York was organized and put into operation at a time when it
   was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,
   southern, and western frontiers."

      _B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

   The framers of this first constitution of the State of New
   York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established
   church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all
   such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to
   establish or maintain any particular denomination of
   Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …
   which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being
   the first organized government of the world to assert by
   constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious
   freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by
   the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to
   expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
   oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition
   of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,
   this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority
   of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
   declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
   profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
   shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all
   mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly
   indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her
   Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well
   as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But
   the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,
   which has since spread over most of the United States, and
   lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not
   freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.
   Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they
   expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted
   to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the
   sea a century and a half before."

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
      volume 2, pages 251-252._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Jay,
      Life of John Jay,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. Roosevelt,
      Gouverneur Morris,
      chapter 3._

      _B. F. Butler,
      Outline of Constitutional History of New York
      (New York Historical Society Collections,
      series 2, volume 2)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
   Opposition to the recognition of
   the State independence of Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
   Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
   Fortifying West Point.

      See WEST POINT.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
   The war on the Indian Border.
   Activity of Tories and Savages.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

{2340}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.
   Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.
   Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   The surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.
   Western territorial claims and
   their cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
   Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
   Evacuation of New York City by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.
   Founding of the Bank of New York.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.
   Rejection of proposed amendments
   to the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
   Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
   The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
   The Holland Purchase.
   The founding of Buffalo.

   The conflicting territorial claims of New York and
   Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English
   crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims
   to the United States which New York made in 1781 and
   Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by
   these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000
   square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was
   finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by
   the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of
   December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by
   the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York
   all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
   of all the territory lying west of the present east line of
   the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the
   pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of
   the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying
   west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of
   Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said
   state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake
   to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New
   York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of
   Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.
   The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,
   amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,
   Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of
   Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,
   Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to
   all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about
   6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in
   three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip
   Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was
   to be received, which was then in market much below par. In
   July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians
   by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title
   to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase
   from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded
   west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the
   state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of
   land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon
   (Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence
   north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the
   confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of
   said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras
   (Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence
   running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the
   westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.
   On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts
   conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,
   their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of
   said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.
   Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This
   tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps
   and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the
   proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they
   had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],
   which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of
   townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and
   others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,
   1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two
   townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a
   quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who
   soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English
   gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold
   at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other
   property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,
   is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps
   and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money
   of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence
   of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock
   (in which the payments for the land were to be received) from
   20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their
   engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to
   relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western
   section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the
   Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by
   Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.
   Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his
   purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school
   fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the
   Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The
   remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western
   New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and
   came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

      _O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 325 and 396-424._

{2341}

   "Much has been written and more has been said about the
   'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially
   precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet
   there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the
   Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city
   of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were
   citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the
   United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not
   hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,
   comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,
   was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the
   legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land
   within the State, and in the latter part of that year the
   American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real
   owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase
   surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of
   land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors
   reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their
   title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.
   One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by
   the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland
   proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and
   made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he
   secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and
   the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of
   land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the
   founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which
   subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,
   on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,
   became its harbor.

      _C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Turner,
      History of the Pioneer Settlement
      of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,
      part 2._

      _O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 401-424._

      _H. L. Osgood,
      The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
      (Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
   The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
   The chief battle ground of the contest.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
   Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
   The beginnings of Tammany.

      See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.
   Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
   Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

   During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,
   "emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all
   children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July
   should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of
   males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age
   of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this
   process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that
   question of compensation which had been the secret of the
   failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves
   was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population
   of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and
   without excitement."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      page 328._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.
   The Free School Society in New York City.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.
   Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.
   The war on the Canadian frontier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (DECEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1814 (SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
   The Clintonians and Bucktails.

   During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the
   State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between
   his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he
   audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,
   assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican
   adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn
   on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been
   Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the
   'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later
   called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,
   the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],
   when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head
   of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between
   Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each
   accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the
   accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      page 56._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 3, page 227._

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, page 450._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
   Construction of the Erie Canal.

   "History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first
   suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake
   Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the
   shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The
   praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the
   fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a
   uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the
   Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in
   1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It
   afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.
   Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to
   have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,
   under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'
   continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first
   brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.
   These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by
   a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment
   for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and
   displayed deep research, with singular vigor and
   comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic
   accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In
   1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in
   pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,
   president of the United States, reported a plan for
   appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general
   government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;
   and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly
   without exception, all the works which have since been
   executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …
{2342}
   In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from
   Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"
   referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to
   the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee
   be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of
   exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the
   most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a
   communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and
   Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to
   appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the
   accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee
   was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was
   directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the
   state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one
   of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native
   genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,
   under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes
   to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed
   that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and
   could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion
   of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished
   throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts
   to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt
   Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William
   North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed
   commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland
   navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake
   Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,
   himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the
   canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested
   this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of
   engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a
   member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,
   submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which
   they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous
   canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate
   of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this
   report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law
   on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to
   provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this
   state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert
   Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to
   consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with
   powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,
   or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the
   undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.
   Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the
   subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)
   and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,
   although it was uncertain whether the national government
   would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would
   afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners
   then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national
   government, and that offer having virtually been declined,
   the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims
   of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the
   canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as
   soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of
   June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners
   and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the
   treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any
   measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the
   country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of
   internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic
   efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."
   But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise
   prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and
   "ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on
   the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking
   the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,
   having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the
   state, and being president of the board of canal
   commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,
   with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the
   26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable
   condition throughout its entire length, affording an
   uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the
   Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a
   telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at
   Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of
   the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on
   the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor
   Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the
   commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

      _W. H. Seward,
      Notes on New York
      (Works, volume 2), pages 88-117._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Hosack,
      Memoir of De Witt Clinton,
      pages 82-119 and 245-504._

      _J. Renwick,
      Life of De Witt Clinton,
      chapters 10-19._

      _C. D. Colden,
      Memoir: Celebration of the
      Completion of the New York Canals._

      _M. S. Hawley,
      Origin of the Erie Canal._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.
   Revision of the Constitution.

   "The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its
   framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to
   insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the
   Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically
   beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to
   because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit
   of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions
   of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive
   power; and because the officers who thus interposed their
   objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for
   good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of
   the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,
   in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could
   be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly
   responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,
   although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact
   disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its
   appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations
   against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later
   day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office
   thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and
   judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this
   Council.
{2343}
   In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their
   commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power
   was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed
   'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this
   State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,
   on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,
   Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and
   Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of
   the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it
   did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the
   question; and second, because it submitted the new
   Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.
   These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael
   Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,
   1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was
   adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,
   not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a
   committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee
   subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to
   the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of
   the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was
   subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of
   the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding
   the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For
   Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The
   Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned
   November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and
   its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of
   Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The
   principal department officers were directed to be appointed on
   an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent
   joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the
   power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and
   with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two
   hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective
   franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an
   election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:
   Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People
   took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt
   it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to
   intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective
   Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and
   interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they
   intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the
   People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the
   members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the
   Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of
   all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme
   Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of
   the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular
   government took the place of parliamentary administration."

      _E. A. Werner,
      Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,
      pages 126-128._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1823.
   The rise of the Albany Regency.

   "The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the
   political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren,
   the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party.
   Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service
   approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William
   L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott,
   Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin
   Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These
   gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the
   nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas
   Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W.
   Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not
   believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at
   any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly
   twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state
   politics."

      _T. Weed,
      Autobiography,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

   "Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and
   generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix,
   Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long
   directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils
   the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen
   in 1885."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      page 96._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.
   Anti-Masonic excitement.
   The abduction of Morgan.

   "The society of free-masons included a large number of the
   foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed
   that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions.
   … This belief was used to create prejudice among those who
   were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction.
   At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of
   Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to
   print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested
   on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge,
   but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and
   imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from
   that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept
   until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged
   with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was
   produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the
   way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive
   in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as
   late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession
   made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact
   perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named,
   after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was
   active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with
   mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation
   was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn
   laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became
   the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was
   one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was
   alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be
   'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but
   the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with
   volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the
   literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of
   sensational novels."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, chapter 33._

{2344}

   "A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose
   the election of any Free Mason to public office. The
   Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and
   began to claim rank as a national political party. On most
   points its principles were those of the National Republicans.
   But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and
   consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even
   nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no
   national principle of controlling importance, it soon after
   declined."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Weed,
      Autobiography,
      chapters 20-30, 36, and 40._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
   The last of Slavery in the state.

   "On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to
   the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery
   in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of
   July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons
   born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be
   free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years
   of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of
   the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights,
   which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of
   slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was
   produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden,
   Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other
   distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of
   New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the
   principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights
   call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great
   enterprise."

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, page 565._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.
   The Loco-focos.

   "The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in
   derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial
   doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was
   originally a division of the Democrats, strongly
   anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to
   banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which
   enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and
   exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic
   candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the
   anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly
   confirm the nominations made in committee was called at
   Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture
   the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars,
   however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by
   reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage
   the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the
   devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready
   with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly
   illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had
   defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful,
   however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the
   anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van
   Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the
   banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837,
   Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular
   Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

      _E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      pages 293-295._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1838.
   Passage of the Free Banking Act.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846.
   The Anti-rent disturbances.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841.
   The McLeod Case.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.
   Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.
   Hunkers and Barnburners.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1846.
   Constitutional revision.

   During the twenty-five years of the existence of the
   constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments
   were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing
   presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending
   the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and
   in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The
   commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the
   elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the
   census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants.
   Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for
   privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially
   under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for
   which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for
   internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted
   demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The
   judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and
   required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the
   electors were called upon to decide whether a convention
   should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted
   in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The
   convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October
   9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango
   presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany,
   George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and
   Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York,
   Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in
   State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the
   principles of government. The new constitution gave to the
   people the election of many officers before appointed at
   Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses
   of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the
   cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an
   independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of
   chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the
   supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts.
   All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures
   were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a
   longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent
   or service were reserved. The financial articles established
   sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt,
   forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited
   rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except
   to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the
   school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for
   general laws for the formation of corporations. The
   constitution required the submission to the people once every
   twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be
   called or not."

      _E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      volume 2, pages 567-569._

{2345}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   The Free Soil movement.
   The Buffalo Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   Legal Emancipation of Women.

      See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.
   Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The speeding of the Seventh Regiment
   to the defense of Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886.
   The founding and growth of Cornell University.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
   The Draft Riots in New York City.

   "A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with
   the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by
   volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not
   filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of
   July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was
   attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to
   call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals
   had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the
   draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic
   journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for
   the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any
   draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in
   this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and
   denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is
   doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including
   any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited
   state of the public mind, especially among the laboring
   population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the
   grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best
   opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence
   of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion
   of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate
   that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers
   published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance
   of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic
   enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the
   serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the
   corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded
   by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten
   o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd,
   who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National
   Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress
   but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!'
   and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the
   conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created.
   Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down
   everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office,
   driving out at the back windows the officials and the
   policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down
   a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as
   they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and
   then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but
   were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this
   moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police,
   approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set
   upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with
   clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a
   mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued,
   he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon
   and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the
   force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and
   Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three
   fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another
   marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at
   Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the
   whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and
   Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police
   force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for
   four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the
   persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through
   the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous
   procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets,
   pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!'
   Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen,
   marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners,
   but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of
   Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a
   compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with
   a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob
   scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded
   and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every
   encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant
   rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and
   down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that
   appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in
   murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found
   its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored
   Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The
   two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken
   away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the
   front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the
   murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York
   Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly
   volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot
   alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and
   tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by
   some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by
   the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end.
   About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died;
   and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was
   eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but
   it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings,
   destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth
   of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to
   the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and
   promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications
   to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and
   asked to have it suspended till the question of its
   constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

      _R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 1._

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

      _D. M. Barnes,
      The Draft Riots in New York._

{2346}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
   The Tweed Ring.

   Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a
   considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the
   control and into the power of a combination of corrupt
   politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was
   one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first
   appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850.
   Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he
   adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand
   Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the
   general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the
   Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not
   completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most
   important political organization in the city, was not absolute
   even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart
   Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former
   mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in
   this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic
   nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was
   appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now
   fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its
   members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of
   the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided
   their adherents with places in the city government, and when
   the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city
   pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political
   influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State,
   they packed the State legislature with their followers, and
   placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In
   1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its
   candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character
   than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest,
   but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political
   friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor
   and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and
   most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g.
   illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration,
   repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left
   vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election
   of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of
   January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the
   Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled
   the common council of the city and the legislature of the
   State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall
   was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the
   Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and
   county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street
   department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and
   thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was
   in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and
   the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both
   through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by
   amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed
   and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In
   1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more
   than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of
   fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises
   of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the
   colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new
   court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun,
   it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed
   $250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of
   $8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed.
   … Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors,
   he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge.
   … A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as
   raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his
   original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference
   between the original and the raised bills was divided between
   the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of
   the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent
   addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign
   of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the
   fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office,
   came into the possession of the New York Times and were
   published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of
   citizens early in September. … It was followed by the
   formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under
   the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This
   committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading
   Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the
   presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and
   with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds
   described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless
   endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful,
   and that prosecutions were brought against several members of
   the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat
   of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and
   virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of
   the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller,
   with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for
   the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office
   gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence
   afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the
   autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the
   better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the
   political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading
   actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure
   the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience
   in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed
   the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country
   and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a
   favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America.
   Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the
   Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the
   bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid
   impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate
   idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In
   1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was
   reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate
   was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the
   property in the city liable to taxation.
{2347}
   In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and
   the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical
   purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax
   rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years
   and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at
   the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

      _F. J. Goodnow,
      The Tweed Ring in New York City
      (chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. J. Tilden,
      The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall._

      _C. F. Wingate,
      An episode in Municipal Government
      (N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,
      October. 1876)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867.
   The Public Schools made entirely free.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882.
   Amendments of the Constitution.

   The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision
   at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the
   calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular
   vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates
   assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment
   was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution
   proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in
   1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary
   article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided
   for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases
   pending in the Court, where business in arrears had
   accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the
   constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by
   the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision
   of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872,
   and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by
   the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and
   1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these
   amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise
   without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment
   for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at
   elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some
   changes were made in the provisions for districting the state,
   after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature
   was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the
   legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the
   governor was extended from two years to three; the governor
   was empowered to veto specific items in bills which
   appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was
   allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his
   hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills
   become law only upon his approval within that time; a
   superintendent of public works was created to take the place
   of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a
   superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three
   inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the
   bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate
   Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or
   granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any
   county, city, town, or village to any association,
   corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt
   conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment
   of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people
   in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of
   tolls.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.
   Black Friday.

   "During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the
   promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth
   thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our
   purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases,
   and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable
   in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in
   the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the
   financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of
   a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was
   legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the
   rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on
   successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign
   nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against.
   The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So
   large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering
   up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that
   it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of
   gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their
   chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of
   Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one
   partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this
   business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made
   them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm,
   though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of
   the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of
   two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of
   railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon
   gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith
   to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of
   gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency
   in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half
   that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two
   millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious
   metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the
   payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower
   rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none
   of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment
   of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him
   that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on
   demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould
   had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some
   hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and
   the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
   Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this
   point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of
   President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his
   private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were
   brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the
   Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable
   for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up
   the price of gold. One important channel for such influences
   was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New
   York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the
   speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases.
{2348}
   By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the
   price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they
   ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter
   part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then
   frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me
   like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out
   then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He
   therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the
   financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for
   some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency
   of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more
   palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed
   the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve
   millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among
   thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All
   Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except
   those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did
   his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President
   himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when
   General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see
   him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap
   set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould
   such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither
   Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their
   personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots
   urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the
   country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country
   of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the
   Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr.
   Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion
   of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that
   it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from
   the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr.
   Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at
   Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the
   sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this
   letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at
   once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the
   13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide,
   stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest
   purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold
   sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and
   only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday,
   September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the
   purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five
   cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the
   profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake
   worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was
   opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments
   against them; and more than all else, there stood the
   Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions
   of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its
   plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin,
   while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any
   Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation,
   addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to
   interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and
   the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do
   so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but
   unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in
   which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private
   messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter,
   asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told
   there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to
   his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most
   unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that
   his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and
   so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the
   greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of
   the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's
   letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and
   on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market
   and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter,
   which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to
   their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half,
   its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold,
   coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr.
   Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's
   suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by
   patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the
   President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her
   sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them
   that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York,
   and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage
   himself from them; that the President was much distressed at
   such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was
   greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got
   himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say
   to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk
   was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of
   Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner
   within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next
   morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The
   next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black
   Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters
   of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it
   brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours
   before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over
   the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers
   were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and
   the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited,
   palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an
   hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144;
   Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his
   work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the
   last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at
   146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then
   150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James
   Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants
   who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own
   ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of
   the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value
   of their artificial metal.
{2349}
   Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to
   159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers
   called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million
   taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further
   offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from
   160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by
   the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making
   seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed
   to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost
   stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till
   before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the
   price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them
   as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when
   the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed,
   and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of
   gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room,
   tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before.
   Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all
   their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the
   precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the
   news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed
   to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold
   fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no
   purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought
   sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay
   therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But
   Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges,
   placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a
   settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these
   judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business
   except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They
   continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they
   were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if
   their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and
   they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements
   between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims
   were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the
   total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin,
   Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and
   therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone
   else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the
   operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less
   than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those
   transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less
   than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two
   afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million
   dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away,
   Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two
   or three days the whole business of New York stood still
   awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all
   the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both
   sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business.
   Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send
   to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw
   millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they
   beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives
   of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by
   the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected
   by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business
   were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small
   clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession
   of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm
   had gone through business transactions to the amount of over
   one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United
   States would compel the completion of those bargains which
   resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were
   forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe
   was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until
   the present generation of business men has passed away will
   the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

      _W. R. Hooper,
      Black Friday
      (The Galaxy, December, 1871)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881.
   Stalwarts and Half-breeds.

      See STALWARTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1881.
   Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1892.
   Restored Tammany government in the City.

   The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled
   for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his
   "ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the
   chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive
   "grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city
   government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was
   justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in
   New York no official body that corresponds with the London
   Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus
   the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of
   the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and
   Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,
   the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of
   New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of
   the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the
   twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other
   officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of
   men of about the same numerical strength as the London
   Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official
   life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred
   thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every
   municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual
   merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British
   empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing
   openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of
   twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,
   its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who
   are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in
   one way or another connected with that interest. So far as
   there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss
   the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in
   the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an
   organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of
   public questions, either local or general, excepting the
   'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military
   rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends
   through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New
   York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance
   of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the
   offices.
{2350}
   Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast
   amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members
   of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of
   the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the
   Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and
   Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools
   and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel
   that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany
   bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany
   themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the
   remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to
   the Tammany domination. The following characterization of
   Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening
   Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any
   legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and
   contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at
   the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or
   in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only
   thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is
   how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the
   places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could
   make his way into the inner conferences at which these
   questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion
   of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to
   repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to
   supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous
   adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,
   ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,
   abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,
   liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public
   treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to
   observe, the society is simply an organization of clever
   adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the
   control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an
   attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a
   particle of politics in the concern any more than in any
   combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train
   and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in
   any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the
   police.'"

      _A. Shaw,
      Municipal Problems of New York and London
      (Review of Reviews, April 1892)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1894.
   Constitutional Convention.

   A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention
   to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the
   election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at
   large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to
   represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the
   advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act
   was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total
   number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all
   elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district.
   The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors
   are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press.
   Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the
   greatest attention.

   ----------NEW YORK: End----------

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

   ----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

NEW ZEALAND:
   The aborigines.

   "The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the
   conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years
   ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but
   some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000
   years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most
   resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters
   vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the
   best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with
   curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad
   arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick
   features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations
   of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to
   have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of
   whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of
   the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state
   that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New
   Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these
   traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as
   the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian
   island, accords with linguistic facts."

      _Hellwald-Wallace,
      Australasia
      (Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893),
      chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Shortland,
      Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders._

      _J. S. Polack,
      Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders._

      _Lady Martin,
      Our Maoris._

      _W. D. Hay,
      Brighter Britain,
      volume 2, chapters 3-5._

      See, also, MALAYAN RACE.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.
   Discovery.
   Colonization.
   Early dealings with Natives.
   Constitutional organization.

   "The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be
   accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in
   1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage.
   As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge
   of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it
   must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own
   countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted
   for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made
   us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character
   of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much
   higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a
   branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own
   traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which
   ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich
   Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into
   some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish
   Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched
   at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent
   voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure,
   a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The
   aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were
   engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has
   been the case in so many distant lands, the first true
   pioneers of civilization were the missionaries.
{2351}
   In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to
   New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church
   Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the
   intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the
   natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the
   direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land
   Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of
   gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same
   ideas as those which actuated the South Australian
   Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was
   at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in
   consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent
   out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives,
   the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul
   Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first
   steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives
   and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view
   of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their
   island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first
   successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the
   proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being
   reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately
   signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms
   of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in
   return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen
   of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people
   the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished
   to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown
   the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might,
   from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen
   that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European
   settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that
   which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of
   pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land
   could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly
   willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some
   instances been confiscated as a punishment for native
   insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed
   from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain
   and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in
   communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and
   ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He
   found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the
   North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent
   settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a
   system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority,
   which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840
   the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great
   Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor.
   This eminent public servant died at his post in September
   1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did
   not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval
   occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white
   settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly
   after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a
   share in the Executive Government, but this was twice
   disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of
   office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs
   rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the
   Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any
   military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come
   to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the
   minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he
   must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however,
   reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field,
   sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other
   expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the
   British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the
   irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he
   was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir
   George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845;
   having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of
   exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate
   turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful
   Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an
   interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and
   during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which,
   however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was
   inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May
   1856) … established responsible government in its fullest
   form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the
   representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand
   remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by
   a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a
   Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very
   large powers, since the only control over him was that
   exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council
   consisted of the Governor and three official members, while
   the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council
   and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At
   that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since
   been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of
   the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847
   was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new
   constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the
   following year it came into force and is still [1886]
   operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists
   of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members
   nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected
   by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to
   household suffrage."

      _Her Majesty's Colonies
      (Colonial and Ind. Exhibition, 1886),
      pages 245-248._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of New Zealand,
      volume 1._

      _G. Tregarthen,
      Story of Australasia._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.
   Land questions with the Natives.
   The King movement.
   The Maori War.

   "In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that
   the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and
   distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It
   was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of
   Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily
   made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the
   national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour
   to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named
   Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki.
{2352}
   In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a
   number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different
   tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the
   island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to
   organize a form of government to protect the interests of the
   native race. Matene … met with little success. … The
   agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled
   rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up,
   and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a
   tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many
   points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the
   assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to
   Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for
   the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was
   passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the
   individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold
   stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway
   over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at
   Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there
   decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the
   centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the
   government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato,
   Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura,
   should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no
   roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and
   that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In
   1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed
   that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of
   Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau
   the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally
   hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life
   when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene,
   and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under
   the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand
   war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined
   that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area
   of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of
   Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head
   of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial
   forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives
   southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at
   Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato
   confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The
   King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at
   Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the
   lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have,
   on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to
   Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died
   out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the
   military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated
   themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said
   that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not
   in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it
   became evident that something would have to be done. The
   colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of
   public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable
   that large centres of population should be cut off from each
   other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not
   allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of
   negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

      _J. H. Kerry-Nicholls,
      The King Country, introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden,
      History of New Zealand._

      _Colonel Sir J. E. Alexander,
      Incidents of the Maori War._

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1887-1893.
   Maori representation.
   Women Suffrage.

   An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which
   the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives.
   Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act
   passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

   ----------NEW ZEALAND: End----------

NEWAB-WUZEER,
OR NAWAB-VIZIER, of Oude.

      See OUDE; also NABOB.

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY:
   The founding of the city by migration
   from New Haven (1666-1667).

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEWBERN, North Carolina: Capture by the national forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NEWBURGH, Washington's headquarters at.

   "At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points:
   at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at
   Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established
   his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he
   remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered
   during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction
   with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he
   established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the
   village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time
   until November, 1783, when the Continental army was
   disbanded."

      _B. J. Lossing,
     Field-book of the Revolution,
     volume 1, page 671._

NEWBURGH ADDRESSES, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

NEWBURN, Battles of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

NEWBURY, First Battles of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWBURY, Second Battle.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Origin of.

      See PONS ÆLII.

NEWCOMEN, and the invention of the steam engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

   ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: Start--------

NEWFOUNDLAND:
      Aboriginal inhabitants.

        See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1000.
   Supposed identity with the Helluland of Norse Sagas.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1498.
   Discovery by Sebastian Cabot.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1500.
   Visited by Cortereal, the Portuguese explorer.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
   The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

   "It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which
   the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the
   north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their
   discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their
   New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their
   neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. …
{2353}
   During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of
   English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks;
   although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with
   Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English
   government passed the first act for the encouragement of the
   fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they
   became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In
   Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be
   derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded
   on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western
   Islands, when this news was spread among them, made
   preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their
   fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According
   to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the
   discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company
   was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for
   the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making
   establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years
   after the return of the last searching expedition for the
   Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of
   Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a
   tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is
   certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must,
   previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable
   business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they
   originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the
   Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word,
   like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin.
   …. The nations who followed them in the fishing business
   imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the
   Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though
   sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention,
   as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the
   Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and
   its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there
   by later English and other visitors during the course of the
   16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519;
   again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey
   Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as
   early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps
   under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships
   employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France
   150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and
   Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among
   the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and
   Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese
   fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The
   first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of
   Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as
   1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese
   had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the
   south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape
   Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the
   oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The
   Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of
   Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy,
   that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had
   sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had
   established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian
   Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this
   pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the
   conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on
   the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin
   with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a
   new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they
   [the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large
   fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the
   side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the
   middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed
   them of their privileges."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1),
      chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown,
      History of Cape Breton,
      chapters 1-2._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1534.
   Visited by Jacques Cartier.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583.
   Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.
   Early English attempts at colonization.
   The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

   "For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no
   fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island.
   During this interval fishermen of various nationalities
   continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively
   engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring
   seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their
   desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in
   the history of the country France has always been an important
   factor. Having from time to time held possession of various
   points of the land, England's persistent rival in these
   latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and
   harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken
   off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to
   plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a
   merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a
   pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from
   the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication
   made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company
   was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most
   illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The
   importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did
   not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its
   fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a
   judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company
   James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of
   all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista
   in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed
   governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito
   Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he
   proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of
   the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable
   auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained
   cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England,
   the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World.
{2354}
   Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne,
   mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from
   the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the
   purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and
   remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown
   that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a
   tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the
   coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore
   from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could
   during the active part of his life to promote its interests,
   on his return to England, in his advanced years, he
   [Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A
   Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a
   great impression at the time. … So highly did King James
   think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every
   parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York
   issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging
   emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of
   Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized
   effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made,
   under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord
   Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent
   conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula
   of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within
   ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of
   fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects
   having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman
   Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for
   his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant
   spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him
   extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him
   Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is
   believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord
   Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his
   first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time,
   became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern
   Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland,
   about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his
   colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with
   his family during many years." But after expending some
   £30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore
   abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and
   its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards
   he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and
   resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon
   after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland,
   Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the
   scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of
   emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so
   largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic
   part of the population at this day is not far short of
   equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David
   Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in
   Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord
   Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a
   Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles
   I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his
   exploit in taking Quebec

      See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

   Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the
   colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly.
   The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being
   a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were
   confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of
   Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the
   sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there
   in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained
   a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants,
   distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Kirke,
      The First English Conquest of Canada,
      chapters 3-4._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.
   The French gain their footing.

   "With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast
   regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence,
   and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the
   estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side
   of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies:
   consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was
   encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a
   footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could
   not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of
   the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and
   by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five
   per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery,
   to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced
   to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it
   does not appear that the struggling government at home found
   leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute
   continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a
   sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he
   was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the
   desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of
   which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects.
   It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to
   give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the
   French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of
   Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession,
   they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a
   territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the
   British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost
   undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that
   name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts
   standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a
   royal government was established. How real was the authority
   assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty
   ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an
   ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the
   marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is
   reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to
   all French subjects, provided that they take a license from
   the admiral for every voyage. …
{2355}
   Thus that period which is regarded as among the most
   humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a
   pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from
   the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this
   alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of
   the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of
   Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which,
   while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of
   its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of
   the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell
   of this encroaching autocracy."

      _C. Pedley,
      History of Newfoundland,
      chapter 2._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.
   French success in the war with England.
   The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

   "On the accession of William III. to the throne of England
   hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's
   declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a
   prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the
   rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set
   forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the
   French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish
   upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an
   acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to
   that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and
   His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been
   more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who
   enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.'
   Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes,
   naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the
   English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a
   French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an
   attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on
   the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St.
   John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to
   Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at
   conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition
   was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former
   being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St.
   John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores,
   could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy
   terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town
   were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to
   destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear
   and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English
   Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the
   invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of
   Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most
   unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the
   same state of division between France and England which had
   existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from
   St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly
   occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other
   positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed.
   The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once
   more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again
   renewed between the rival powers."

      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      chapter 18._

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1705.
   English settlements destroyed by the French.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.
   Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht.
   French fishing rights reserved.

   In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht,
   April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish
   Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's
   War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with
   its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now
   called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with
   the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia,
   and whatever other places in the island are in possession of
   the French, shall from this time forward belong of right
   wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France
   should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of
   the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista
   to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the
   western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications
   or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made
   of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. …
   But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the
   mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same
   name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France,
   who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

      _R. Brown,
      History of the Island of Cape Breton,
      letter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hatton and M. Harvey,
      Newfoundland,
      part 1, chapters 3-4;
      and part 3, chapter 7._

      See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1744.
   Attack on Placentia by the French.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748.
   The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D: 1745-1748.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763.
   Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris,
   with rights of fishing reserved to France.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      also FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778.
   French fishery rights on the banks recognized
   in the Franco-American Treaty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783.
   American fishing rights conceded in the
   Treaty of Peace with the United States.

       See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818.
   Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1854-1866.
   Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877.
   The Halifax Fishery award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed fishery disputes.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

   ----------NEWFOUNDLAND: End----------

NEWNHAM HALL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

NEWPORT, England, The Treaty at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),
      and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

{2356}

   ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: Start--------

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1524.
   Visited by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1639.
   The first settlement.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778.
   Held by the British.
   Failure of French-American attack.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

   ----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: End--------

NEWSPAPERS.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650, and after.

NEWTON BUTLER, Battle of (1689).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

NEWTONIA, Battles of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS);
      and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

NEY, Marshal, Campaigns and execution of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER),
      1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809;
      RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

NEZ PERCÉS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

   ----------NIAGARA: Start--------

NIAGARA:
   The name and its original applications.

   "Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he
   must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the
   name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river;
   located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was
   also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a
   fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality
   under the particular notice of the English. The name of this
   Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne-ah'-gä,'
   in Tuscarora 'O-ne-ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in
   Oneida 'O-ne-ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These
   names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is
   clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus
   came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of
   the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present
   Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in
   Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida
   'O-ne-arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by
   the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the
   falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local
   geographical terms which have come down to us from the
   aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English,
   for with them it passed through almost every possible
   alphabetical variation before its present orthography was
   established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the
   Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter
   dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake
   Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map
   of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled
   'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's
   map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the
   present, the French have been consistent in their orthography,
   the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among
   English writers. The word was probably derived from the
   Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse
   with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah',
   with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the
   secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name,
   Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section
   of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That
   portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called
   Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

      _O. H. Marshall,
      The Niagara Frontier
      (Historical Writings, page 283)._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688.
   Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

   "We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of
   July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and
   collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had
   resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land,
   between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois
   side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this
   work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on
   the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being
   necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor
   so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the
   last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia
   having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a
   condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon,
   in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their
   own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I
   embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the
   regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to
   finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not
   only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a
   detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under
   the command of M. Troyes."

      _Marquis de Nonville,
      Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
      (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173)._

   "De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been
   entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having
   supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It
   occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by
   the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville
   left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months.
   A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they
   nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were
   so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to
   supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon
   after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De
   Nonville."

      _Marquis de Nonville,
      Journal of Expedition against the Senecas
      (translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).
      Foot-notes_

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,
      pages 155 and 166._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726.
   The stone fort built.
   How the French gained their footing.
   Joncaire's wigwam.

   Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by
   the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was
   the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them,
   acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and
   was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to
   civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of
   the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the
   Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site
   for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was
   the man to manage it.
{2357}
   He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and
   dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course,
   'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of
   themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important
   trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   "In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de
   Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville
   formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      volume 2, page 516._

NIAGARA: A. D. 1755.
   Abortive expedition against the fort, by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1756.
   The fort rebuilt by Pouchot.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1759.
   The fort taken by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1763.
   The ambuscade and massacre at Devil's Hole.

      See DEVIL'S HOLE.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1764.
   Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians.
   Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1783.
   Retention of the Fort by Great Britain
   after peace with the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1796.
   Surrender of the fort by Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1813.
   Surprise and capture of the fort by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
     A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

   ----------NIAGARA: End--------

NIAGARA, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814.
   The War.
   Queenstown.
   Buffalo.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1813 (DECEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA PEACE MISSION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY).

NIAGARA RIVER, Navigated by La Salle (1679).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

NIBELUNGEN LIED, The.

   "Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of
   the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in
   fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the
   epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the
   Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us
   the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand
   years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was
   composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a
   still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the
   Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or
   civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at
   length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to
   parchment."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Short History of German Literature,
      part 1, chapter 1._

   "In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an
   ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden
   Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament);
   which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of
   publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased
   current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after
   Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated
   as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection
   of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth
   Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted
   Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable
   addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right
   understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world
   as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of
   the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage
   is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as
   epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen,
   such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred
   enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore,
   was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation:
   to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong
   patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was
   an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous
   Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August
   Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum,
   succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular
   feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole
   host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour,
   whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now
   been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with
   more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart
   from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest
   monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere
   detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that
   cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of
   poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is
   not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an
   internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some
   spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest
   characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what
   intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be
   prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books,
   as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore;
   almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose
   Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute
   of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and
   loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer
   of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep
   poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped
   themselves together into life, and the Universe with its
   wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as
   with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little
   scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so
   many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and
   organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one
   great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its
   multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an
   instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this
   Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his
   contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same
   material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed
   himself of what these could only strive after; and with his
   'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors
   and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled.
{2358}
   He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and
   depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart
   from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble
   half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than
   a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish
   (Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear
   decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without
   essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even
   harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and
   language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of
   the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should
   say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily
   yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection
   of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous
   rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The
   reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of
   Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally
   rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers
   in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for
   legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen
   without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too,
   a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at
   rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. …
   The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious,
   guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are
   few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of
   Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than
   beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space.
   Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially
   is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of
   Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster
   in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the
   Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining
   armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Nibelungen Lied
      (Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3)._

   "The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than
   300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King
   Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was
   the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric
   governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very
   warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The
   invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his
   own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the
   Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part
   of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the
   Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius,
   who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the
   Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle
   about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king
   Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be
   annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same
   time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror
   of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his
   court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights
   Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just
   learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came
   of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his
   followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454).
   Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a
   Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led
   the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About
   the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of
   the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the
   Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his
   kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an
   attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered
   a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of
   the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the
   Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than
   a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the
   neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took
   possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful
   transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new
   empires, furnished the historical background of the German
   hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally
   against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a
   mere incident in the internal history of the German nation.
   There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the
   fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it
   really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer,
   transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes
   that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of
   Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything
   connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and
   Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians.
   These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen,
   Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated
   scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German
   Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many
   architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann
   attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and
   analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not
   indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed
   out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of
   the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after
   the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of
   which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of
   the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by
   the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such
   differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to
   separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about
   twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed
   been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as
   we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis
   no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions
   which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art,
   while the rest is valueless."

      _W. Scherer,
      History of German Literature,
      chapters 2 and 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Taylor,
      Studies in German Literature,
      chapter 4._